![]() |
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#61 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
Fitting a Heads Up Display such as on the new BMW's is a much better idea, cheap too considering it is just and LED readout of the speed set in the dash that reflects on the windscreen at the bottom of the drivers field of vision. Manufacturers could fit that at the same cost of fitting the worthless speed alert system. Then I would be more of a supporter of reduced tolerance for speeding infringements.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |||
FORMER T3 OWNER
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,241
|
Quote:
I will never accept that a couple of K either way will make the difference, no I’m not talking 15+ k either way I’m talking about the general acceptance of 10% leeway. As far as I can see and I have been involved over the past years with various road campaign's and road safety aspects, Govco seems to accept only part of the Experts advice. They spend millions to get Road Safety advice from overseas, bring in experts from all fields including industry leaders in new car safety innovation/road tec experts from all over Europe but then only take "snippets" of the advice given. Case in point regards to Speed where camera's were introduced in "known black spots" (also written in the legislation for qld at least") but have now spread to anywhere they can cash in on motorists, despite constant advice to raise speed zones on places like the M1 and reduce in other areas, all they do is reduce and then add extra patrols/camera's... see no reduction in the road toll so bring out harsher penalties same rhetoric we have had now going on 15 + years..... It’s a cash grab and nothing more, want to get serious about the road toll and reduce the number of crashes over all: Driver Training and Retraining every 5-10 years. Reduce the number of speed zones that litter the inner suburbs and have some logic to it all. Be Blaintant when having cameras out and about, MAKE THEM VISIBLE they are meant to be in known black spots well PUT IT IN PEOPLES FACES rather being the deceitful "insert ford forums appropate euphemism here" Average speed limit in countries around the world is 130, so far only NT has the same logic and even that is a bit flawed. While on the topic of NT, its a perfect example where dictorian limits haven’t worked... implement them and the toll rises, have them unrestricted and have a significant drop in road toll... simple fact is, 85th percentile rule works, you would have very few (miniscule amount) who would abuse the open limit, most would set a comfortable 130-160km/h and cruise on which is what tended to happen when we had the freedom to think for ourselves. just a thought.
__________________
Mischief.TV you can sleep in your car, but you cant drift your house... ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#63 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
What research have you done? found every website that says speed cameras are a scam? you have done zilch Quote:
![]() One by one, they are exposed for pushing the same barrow of rubbish: ![]() http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...6&postcount=77 Quote:
Case in point, why did we have to enact 40km/h zones outside schools, the 85 percentile logic falls over very sadly there. Last edited by sudszy; 01-07-2011 at 04:11 PM. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
I applaud the fact that you're so passionate about it, but it might be time to take a step back and relax. The issue of speed/safety cameras is one that seems to get all people worked up on this forum, there are those who purport to know better than the current laws we have in place and there are those who purport to know better than those who know better...it goes round and round in circles. Speed cameras alone will not solve the issues faced on the roads, but the combination of speed and inattention can be lethal, we are all aware of this. Let's face it, those who decide to speed and be careless are probably doing the world a favour, gene pool cleaning, etc., right? Wrong, they make it worse for the rest of us until we're confronted with so many rules and regulations that we can't move without a permit. If the issue of inattention and carelessness in a 'lethal weapon' is not addressed, we may as well all walk, because the laws are only going to get tighter, until people start taking responsibility, and not just for the speed they're going - but for how they go about getting from A to B in the said 'lethal weapon' with no care or attention for others on the road... The 1k over rhetoric doesn't do the government any favours if they are truly interested in lowering the road toll...applying the focus to speeding and not correct operation of a motor vehicle is the first mistake they have made. Sure, apparently it's easier to legislate speeding, you chuck up a few cameras, but the issue of driver inattention is not addressed. When you actually consider that Qld State govt were actually going to allow those going for the p's to 'fail to indicate' and speed during their licencing tests...it's pretty clear that the 'powers that be' don't seriously give a toss about lowering the road toll, it's about making money.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#65 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#66 | |||
Adapt or perish...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dip!@#$
Posts: 7,954
|
Quote:
You best remember that a friggin hell of alot of users here think that speed cameras not only are a waste of taxpayers money but are also there to line the pockets of the fools you decided to vote in. I bet you're also of the opinion that carbon tax is desperately needed and that live cattle exports are wrong and cruel. Take your pig and fly off. You'll be doing AFF a service by doing so.
__________________
Carless
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#67 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Outstanding post, well done, I could not agree more. Speed monitoring and law enforcement has its place but only in a coordinated effort against all the factors which contribute to vehicle crashes, there is no single magic bullet some would have us believe there is. Where is the effort on drunk/drugs, fatigue, inattention, driver competence, vehicle standards, road standards etc to complement this effort against speeding? When I see more evidence that these other factors are being supported more consistently with more than "flash in the pan" blitzes, my opinion will change.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#68 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
It is not as though been a campaign on driver inattention from the TAC over the years...dozy drivers die, looking out for motor cycles and many others, look em up on utube. and no speeding is not the only cause of accidents but the logic from most respondents here, that 1kmh over is safe, 2kmh over is safe.....and then somewhere there is some magic line you cross that it becomes unsafe is bewildering. It would appear for many who post in these threads it wouldnt matter what the tolerance was If we made the tolerance 10km/h over, they'd be whinging about how the got done for doing 11km/h over being only 1 km/h over the tolerance and all the same rhetoric about what difference does 1km/h over make? ![]() see the problem |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#69 | |||
Red is nice Mark.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 1,385
|
Quote:
__________________
Twin T3's TE 50 #72 Blueprint & TS 50 #105 Blueprint ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#70 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#71 | |||
FORMER T3 OWNER
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,241
|
Quote:
Im awaiting for your evidance that 1km over is as you put it "unsafe" you prove to me that 101 in a 100 zone is the differance between life and death then and only then will you have any basis for the mindless approach you have. I will make reference links tonight to my sources of information. I will request that you do the same in future when making your claims as well.. whats good for the goose is well..... Your inability to see that in life there is black/white and grey is outstanding.. Take your own advice sudzy, when you start posting "factual" informaion backing your claims then some of us mite take you seriously, because the only thing you have proven is that your a very small minded closed eyed troll. ![]()
__________________
Mischief.TV you can sleep in your car, but you cant drift your house... ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#72 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#73 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
Have only talked about the risk increase as speeds increase. The stats are already out there 5km/h over doubles your risk......Ive forgotten if that's for 60 or 100km/h, but look it up for yourself, no time for fools now, gotta go. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#74 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
I grew up in Vic, I found the TAC ads to be very hard hitting, but it didn't stop almost a third of the kids I grew up with ending up wrapped around trees or through fences. They weren't watching TV or listening to radios, so the ad's never really had any impact on them. I don't think an advertising campaign alone helps these issues, as much as proper driver education from the ground up - but that too has been discussed on so many occasions that it's not funny. If it were actually thought about appropriately by the governments, they could make quite a bit of coin (keeping in line with their current regime) by forcing a drivers licence retest every year AND a roadworthy every year, provide discounts for registrations and licencing should a driver be an exemplary driver. In doing this (yes, there's an increased cost), they ensure the following: a) Each and every driver is 'capable' behind the wheel of a car b) A vehicle is roadworthy for at least a month, which is more than we can say at the moment. These actions alone would actually give some credence to the governments suggestions that they actually care about the citizens of the country, and don't just see us all as cash cows. There are flaws in this theory, I'm aware of that too - but at the moment, the general consensus from the public is that our respective governments are simply taking more and more revenue, and to be honest - I'm not liking the figures on where this 'consolidated revenue' is being spent...and I think there's probably a lot of others who are in the same boat. I guess people are getting a little sick of being treated like idiots by those who are put in their roles to 'look after Australian's'... The arguments that have arisen are at times poorly worded, but if worded a little less emotively and a little more 'strategically', their arguments would be virtually impossible to argue against, even for an astute person such as yourself. (That's not a dig guys, so please don't take it that way, I can see what you're trying to say, you just need to fill some of the holes in your arguments, and they will be a lot stronger, and subsequently avoid those trying to pick holes in your arguments ![]() I don't think the personal attacks and to-fro's do any of you any favours, and to be honest is starting to look more like a school yard, than adults having intelligent conversations.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#75 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() Only one thing to add, Sez for Prez!
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#76 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
I grew up in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne, hooning was just not part of the deal for all the people I grew up with, some had some nose/tail incidents in traffic, but as far as I know, no-one did anything that caused them to lose control of a car ending up backwards in a ditch, etc. None of them had done any more than training than pass the driving test, which Im guessing all your friends managed to do also and would assume that skill level would have been equivalent. Clearly to me, safe driving is all 99.9% attitude and 0.1% skill and clearly its the attitude that needs to be worked on. Your friends obviously were capable of displaying the right behaviours in their driving test, but that went out the window for a third of them once they got their licence. Im sure pyschological tests exist right now to weed out these people, that's the direction I believe we also need to move in as well as coming down on these people when they muck up as well. Quote:
I have no problem though with retesting anyone(at any age) that scores any traffic violation! (incentive to drive within the law) RWC, Ive no problems with having a roadworthy car, but paying $80 for someone to tick the boxes and confirm that every year, no thanks. You do realise that unroadworthy vehicles are seldom reported as being a factor in accidents? Big fines for people driving around with bung lights, bald tyres and other defects.......bring them on! |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#77 | ||||
Performance Inc.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In a cave
Posts: 2,554
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
In The Garage... ![]() FPV Super Pursuit Build no 0080/91 Lotus Exige S/C S240 Kart Hasse Chassis 100J Power Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#78 | |||||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
Quote:
source: http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/stat...rID=1&navID=17 If the testing is not just made to be a 'standard' test, and is actually competency based, ergo more than just handbrake starts, three point turns and reverse parking - you might just find that the aptitude level of participants in these tests increases also. Let's face it, the standard driving lessons will tell you 'hands 10 to 2'...I personally think that's BS because it's uncomfortable for me, others swear by it. But that's not the kind of skill that you need behind the wheel - you need the right attitude to go with it...something that is greatly lacking in not only young drivers, but those who have become 'complacent'. Quote:
You yourself have an attitude that the increase of speed results in an increase in the possibility of an accident. I have the attitude that the unroadworthy vehicle beside me could actually lose that tyre that's shaking like a blender, and potentially endanger me...and I don't want to see that on the road. I don't think big fines are the solution, I think making sure that those who drive a vehicle know their 'RESPONSIBILITIES' is a much better alternative. If they have to complete a roadworthy every year, it ensures that tyres are changed, etc. - if they choose to remove them after the fact - well, then take their licence away from them, as social responsibility obviously isn't very high on their scale of importance - which IMO it should be...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#79 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
So here is what I said: "Big fines for people driving around with bung lights, bald tyres and other defects.......bring them on! " Defective brakes and steering is covered by other defects! Nothing wrong with "random" roadworthy inspections, randomly targetting the POS(with a backwards baseball cap midget at the wheel) that drive along with the lowered suspension, too loud exhaust, bypassed emission controls, dodgy tyres.....that all seemed to be ok at the time of the annual rwc inspection. please appreciate anything that shows up in a random roadside inspection will warrant that a full inspection of the car should take place looking for other defects also, and perhaps the owner of that car can enjoy annual inspections at his expense for the next ten years(whatever car they own). The message here is target those that get it wrong, not to put those that can do the right thing through inconvenience after inconvenience. Ive been driving longer than most people here have been alive(sorry if Ive mentioned that before), if some had there way here, Id of have to take a driving test every year and had my car inspected every year to achieve what? Clearly there is nothing to gain in having the majority of careful and law abiding citizens doing that.....concentrate on those that do the wrong thing. Yeh, blown headlight and cracked windscreen, chances are the car is driven by someone who just doenst care and is neglected, has to pass a full inspection after that. Last edited by sudszy; 01-07-2011 at 08:54 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#80 | |||
Rob
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Woodcroft S.A.
Posts: 21,557
|
Quote:
why you continue to change the 'drift over occasionally' into intentionally driving at an increased speed amazes me but i assume its because it suits your argument better. there is a very large % of drivers out there that believe it or not, do not intend to speed in their day to day travels. the fact is that occasionally everyone will find themselves on the wrong side of the magic number on the sign at some point or other whilst driving. to suggest that every instance of this is intentional and that its asking for trouble.... well i guess you have your own strawman. i still can't believe that you said if everyone did the speed limit or less, the road toll would drop. i really didn't think anyone was capable of buying that argument, and i still believe they probably aren't. i don't think you believe it. i think you are obiously connected in some way to the people that promote it. if you aren't mr scruby, i'm sure he's a good mate of yours. thanks to fullnoise, here's an example of what we see on our roads everyday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtHzaeTpYB0 not exactly full of speeding drivers now is it. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#81 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,325
|
Sudzsy, Read every thread you have posted in.
Look at the number of people who disagree with you verses the number of people who agree with you. You will see that you are out numbered and will never change an opinion. So why bother? |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#82 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
An example of this is your post that I have quoted, you state that there is no need for annual roadworthy inspections (although some states disagree with you) and that the nation wide policy of random roadside inspections is sufficient to ensure all cars on the road are in fact road worthy. Well we have had that policy for a long time now and for the same amount of time it has been completely inadequate at ensuring all vehicles are road worthy. I make that statement based on my observations during my 20+ years of driving, a considerable portion of which is as a professional driver as part of my employment and a lot of km's driven. I rarely see cars pulled over on the side of the road being inspected by state transport inspectors or police. The times that I do see a vehicle going through such an inspection it is normally from the demographic group to which you refer ("with a backwards baseball cap midget at the wheel"). Now yes stopping these vehicles and inspecting them is effective at controlling that group of road user (to a certain point), but they are not the only one driving defective vehicles. What of the middle aged male driving a magna at the posted speed limit that never does anything wrong but also does not have a scrap of tread on his tyres and belts showing on the inside edge of the fronts. What about the old guy driving the HT holden that he has owned since new, never breaks the law, always pays his rego but has so much rust in the lower ball joints on the front that when he turns into a drive way one snaps and he ends up stuck with the subframe dragging on the ground on that shopping centre driveway (that is a real occurrence that I saw). What about all those people that take their car in to get brakes done and their brake rotors end up on display in the workshop because they are worn down to the ventilation vanes (that level of wear is not a fast process, it is a sign of a long term unroadworthy car). Then there is the early 90's model sedan that has tail lights that are so faded by the sun that they are no longer red and amber, they are now white (bright and annoying) with virtually no colour difference between brake, indicators and reverse lights. On the subject of tail lights, what about the person that does not have a single globe working, that is a long history of "can't be stuffed" on behalf of the motorist. These are all situations that I have seen and many of them I see almost daily. If we had effective roadworthy inspections, surely I would not see those examples so regularly. Yes roadside inspections play a part but without the use of a hoist, the ability to at least remove the wheels and an inspector with mechanical expertise many faults that cause a vehicle to be unroadworthy will not be detected so their use is limited. In my opinion we need a system of scheduled road worthy inspections. At the moment you can almost drive anything in QLD as long as you don't break any road laws, never attract the attention of the police and you never sell or buy a car. In my opinion that is not good enough, roadworthy inspections exist to ensure that all cars on the road are roadworthy, not just a tool to inconvenience young people with their stereos too loud, exhaust too loud or hat on backwards. I find the comment you made that you have been driving longer than most of us have been alive interesting. In my experience and observations, one of the larger contributing demographics to the number of unroadworthy vehicles comes from your demographic. Yet this demographic is also the least likely to be a subject of a random roadworthy inspection, interesting to say the least. I wonder if the number of unroadworthy vehicles being driven by that demographic is a result of the fact that they are least likely to be inspected. What I find difficult to understand is the policy makers constantly tell us that every K over is a killer and that if the placement of a speed camera saves one life it is worth it. Then the same policy makers tell us that the number of deaths as a result of unroadworthy cars is not sufficient to cause new policies to be implemented. Is it just me or do others see the contradiction there? In one statement just 1 life makes it worth it but on the other, 1 life is not enough value for policy change. So which is it, or is it just a case of one does not offer sufficient revenue to make it worth it?
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#83 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
If people make the DELIBERATE decision to sit right on the speed limit, what do they expect? they are going to "drift" over some of the time, can hardly say it was an accident, no more than kids play a cricket next to your house with a hard ball can claim it was accidental when the ball bounces the wrong way and takes out one of your windows, its an expected eventuality. Govco isnt after the persons that occasionally exceed the speed limit for a few seconds they are after those that sit right on the edge of the present tolerances abusing the purpose it was put there, and my experience there are many of those, and most likely to be in a newer car. How else can we explain why we have all these relatively new cars with speedos that underead by 4-5km/h when its is an ADR that they must not underead by any amount. so yes,those people sitting right on the edge of the present tolerances are twice as likely to be involved in collisions as those driving just under the limit, that is why "govco" is focussing on it. It is unforunate that we have a large number of people here that dont want to look at the science/stats or comprehend it,(that extends to climate change and other areas) and its all too easy to fling out the "govco scam" every time govco makes a move that is for the long term benefit of society Quote:
I do notice that the idiotic behaviour wasnt solely confined to teenage girls driving small cars oblivious to the needs of big trucks, supposedly skilled truck drivers causing apparently just as much mayhem.. No argument from me, more active policing of these roads, or even action from the video footage. Unfortunately removing cameras from intersections, or changing their tolerances (what the thread is about) doesnt translate to putting more police cars on the road, from a financial or even logical argument. Last edited by sudszy; 02-07-2011 at 02:45 PM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#84 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
I'd like to add something further to this 'great debate'.
Currently our law makers are utilising 'behaviourist' techniques to ensure that we do the right thing on the road. For those who aren't aware of behaviourism, it basically means reinforcers and punishers. Now from what I can see of current legislation - we have plenty of punishers but very few positive reinforcers, but plenty of negative ones. So what do we get if we do the right thing, at the moment, we get to keep our licence - I don't think that's enough, we pay for the privileged of having a licence to start with, so basically we're not getting anything... If we do the wrong thing, we are punished, by having to pay once again. Not once in this scheme, do we get given money or discounts or anything to reward our 'good behaviour'... It's okay to punish bad behaviour, but if you're not doing anything to reward good behaviour, you become a dictatorship, and that doesn't work in a so-called 'democracy' does it? We are run by a fear system, it's the fear that we will lose our licence that drives us and motivates us, and that doesn't make for a happy environment, for anyone...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#85 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#86 | |||
IWCMOGTVM Club Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Suburbs Melbourne
Posts: 17,799
|
Quote:
I agree, the only thing I want to know is what 'good behaviour' should they be pushing. The keep under the speed limit mentality is not the best thing as in some situations driving 95kph in a 100kph zone can be more dangerous then driving 110kph in the same zone.
__________________
Daniel |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#87 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
When are you ever going to admit we have a point? Speed is not the road safety silver bullet, there are other significant issues on our roads that get little to no Govco attention? Actually, don't worry about that question, not that you will anyway. You never answer any question that does not fit in with your agenda. For an example look to my previous questions regarding vehicle roadworthiness and your subsequent lack of comment. Or perhaps my comments about the effectiveness of speed alerts in vehicles in the environment of ever changing speed limits, no comment from you on that one either.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Last edited by geckoGT; 02-07-2011 at 05:01 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | |||
Rob
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Woodcroft S.A.
Posts: 21,557
|
Quote:
unfortunately, speed camera's are unable to discriminate. if get pinged, it doesn't matter if it you were speeding for 5 seconds or 5 hours. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#89 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
Ideally, the behaviour that needs to be pushed is social responsibility, and an awareness of others who drive with us on the roads - but once again, that's in a idealistic world, and for that to happen, human nature has to change - not something I see happening any time soon. But in saying that, the behaviourist and constructivist theories are both used in the 'little kids world', with a great deal of success - the only reason they don't work in the 'adult world' is because there's no reward, and very rarely any consultation as to what happens - and therefore no incentive. So we create an incentive - no demerit point accumulation - 10% reduction on your registration, two years without demerit point accumulation - 20% reduction on your registration. And not just demerit points taken into consideration, parking fines, the whole lot. You want to change the society and how it thinks but you want them to be in control of what they achieve. Speeding is a factor that will come into play, but I don't think it will have any great impact until those that are in control understand that their 'legislation' is creating a society that is dubious as to their 'real motives'. If the real concern is road safety, drop the fines and increase the demerit points. The only thing you run into there is the usual outcry of 'it's not my fault that I got a demerit point' or 'but that's not fair that I have to pay full registration'. We need to start taking responsibility for our own actions, personally the above excuses wouldn't fly with me...you did it - you deal with it. End of story. Make these judgments water tight so that going to court and 'appealing' (as seems to be the common thing these days) would be fruitless (obviously dependent on the fine) - nope, bugger it, your fault, accept it, deal with it and move on - perhaps you'll understand why you shouldn't have your mobile phone to your ear, be texting, changing lanes with no indicators, tailgating, etc. It all requires a police presence...as well as an acceptance that you're a big boy/girl now, and you need to accept that sometimes it is YOUR FAULT. The other question is do you remove the current fixed speed cameras and replace them with point to point and average out the speed over distance? Do we use the current revenue from speed cameras to recruit more police officers, so the presence is there on the roads, so that 'leniency' may be applied in certain circumstances? At the end of the day, the possibilities are endless - it just requires some tweaking...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#90 | |||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
Despite a large reduction in Victoria's road toll since 1989, the 18 to 25 year age group remains vastly over-represented in road trauma statistics. In their first year of driving, young Victorians are almost four times more likely to be involved in a fatal or serious injury crash than more experienced drivers. While 18 to 25 year olds represent around 14% of licenced drivers, they accounted for approximately 28% of all drivers killed on Victoria's roads.http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/cont...ull&pageID=209 which of course confirms those that who have most recently received their licence are more likely to crash and in no way supports your claims that yearly licence testing will achieve anything. Quote:
Or by the same token, where’s my jelly bean?, I haven’t killed anyone today. Do people really need rewards to do the right thing? This is supposedly the adult world, not afterschool care. Vic already offers a discount on licence renewal if you are point free, big whoop, not even worth half any road fine. What else can you do, make licence renewal cost a couple of grand and refund the difference at the end of the year if there are no infringements......at the end of the day what is the difference between that and giving out fines in the first place. Quote:
Quote:
the problem of speed deserves attention and would be negligent not to enforce it. Quote:
Quote:
Speed alerts, just a suggestion for those that claim they cant maintain a constant speed by having a quick “blink” at the speedo every minute or so or believe the will be better off with Ray Charles at the wheel. No they aren’t necessary, nor is a speedo in my opinion(but Im willing to let everyone have one just so they have less excuses), but you wanna harp on about how its all too much trouble for changing zones... ![]() Your solution is we must all have a buck Rodgers heads up display.....we aren’t flying fighter planes trying to shoot targets at mach II, there is only really only one instrument that we need to pay any attention to to drive our cars safely.. Quote:
|
|||||||||
![]() |