NSW Premier: Speed Camera Review

[F6_Ute]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I was of the impression they could enforce this?

I'm sure they can & I'm guessing it might come under neg driving??? or is there a particular offence for it??? I've never seen nor heard of anyone being pulled over for it so I don't know ... I'd love to hear if anyone has!

I see dozens of extreme cases of tailgating (drivers following by less than a car length travelling at >100kph on the M4) every week, the point is it doesn't get policed. At that speed the tailgating driver has less than 0.2sec to respond to what's going on in front, this less than the average human reaction speed ... a 2 second gap (the minimum recommend in good conditions) at that speed is over 50m or half a football field - sadly too few drivers actually leave this sort of a gap

Originally Posted by gtxb67

from what i have heard, they have cameras on the autobahn to check distances

I've heard of this also, I've heard licences are suspended on the spot for tailgating at speeds over 100kph - not sure how the mechanics of their methods for policing this work but it's two simple factors, speed & distance, it can't be that hard

Originally Posted by Ben73

I have been the passenger in a few cars where the driver was following a car by about 1 second. When I made a comment about it they said. "Nah this is not very close, I could stop in time if need be"

I always leave safe gaps in traffic, especially when some idiot is tailgating me. Its frustrating because you forever have ******* cutting in front of you just because you leave enough room to fit a car. They think its a reserved space for them. Then I have to slow down even more to create another safe gap.

I share ur experience here Ben - but I'd rather have the tailgating idiot in front of me than behind - at least then I can control the situation

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Show me where I referred to 25 year old cars, you can't because I did not. I was referring to a 5 year old car which is 2 km/h out at 100, my 4 year old Mini is 4 km/h out at 100. I have a work colleague, not a car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination that owns a Hyundai Santa Fe, he was booked for 9 km/h by a speed camera in a 100 zone. He swore that he was not speeding as he is very careful about it. We checked his speedo using a GPS unit and his speedo is in fact showing 10 km/h less than his actual road speed. The vehicle is salary packaged, well serviced and only 3 years old. He is still fighting with Hyundai to have it fixed, they claim it is within tolerances. ?

Sorry I thought you "were up to speed" with the current reg for speedos in that they can only over read and not by more than 10%, so talking about people being done for speeding because they had inaccurate speedos could only mean you were talking about older vehicles

Your friend needs to be more insistent with Hyundai, it is an ADR for a speedo to not under- read in a car of that age.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

2 seconds in each mirror every 20 seconds is at least 12 seconds every minute, plus a 2 second speed check every 20 seconds as well, there is another 4 seconds. That is.....

you should leave real world numbers to those that have some idea......2 seconds to check the speedo? I can get in and out of the car in that time......your hypotheticals based on all that are ridiculous.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Then you need to get out more and talk to real people. One of the pleasures in my job is that I get to talk to people every day. I rarely meet anyone that likes the idea of reduced speed tolerance on speed cameras, and these are people from all shapes, sizes and ages. It is amazing what people talk about whilst ramped for 3 hrs in an ambulance. By the way, I do not watch ACA, TT or listen to the radio so how would I know?

I appreciate you get a different perspective from your job, but you have people complaining about cameras riding in your ambulances?, says something about why they may have ended up in there in the first place!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

dear oh dear sudszy... true colours showing.
in case you missed it here, this is a ford car forum, where a LOT of members own 25yr old POS...

The law DOESNT REQUIRE car owners to calibrate their speedos... wake up to yourself.

Strawmen again, no-one, certainly not me said you have to have your speedo calibrated, just obey the law regarding the speed you should travel at, how you achieve that is your problem/business, problems of older vehicles going faster than they should isnt something the rest of the public needs to put up with.

I accept that some here own 25 year old cars, but drive them on the roads in an unfit state? well they deserve every criticism I can muster.

I know all about driving older vehicles, the speedo drive and driven gears in the gearbox can wear and when that happens you can have a speedo that under - reads considerably, could be down to half the real speed. Should we let people in older cars do double the limit because of that, you know its ridiculous.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry I thought you "were up to speed" with the current reg for speedos in that they can only over read and not by more than 10%, so talking about people being done for speeding because they had inaccurate speedos could only mean you were talking about older vehicles

Your friend needs to be more insistent with Hyundai, it is an ADR for a speedo to not under- read in a car of that age.



you should leave real world numbers to those that have some idea......2 seconds to check the speedo? I can get in and out of the car in that time......your hypotheticals based on all that are ridiculous.



I appreciate you get a different perspective from your job, but you have people complaining about cameras riding in your ambulances?, says something about why they are in there in the first place!

Ok, for a start the reason he knows about the speed variation on his 3 year old car is because he asked me to follow him in an ambulance and confirm his speed using the MDT and satellite AVL, he is fighting with Hyundai regarding this.

Also, if the build quality of cars sold in australia is so good and can be relied on so completely, why is it my $65,000 FPV Ute that was 3 months old periodically had a speedo that did not even work?

As for you consideration on my figures in eyes off road times, do you seriously not believe that the time to move your eyes from the road to the speedo and focus could not be 1/2 second - 1 second, add 1 second to register the speed and then another 1/2 second -1 second to refocus on the road. Consider this, the reaction time it takes for you to register a hazard if you are looking at it is 1/2 second, and you are not trying to read something or moving your eyes. I think I was actually being a bit generous, but lets let the audience make up their own mind on who is more likely to be right.

Also, I am sure the 70 year old man who slipped on the wet bathroom floor, the mother of the child who broke his arm at footy or the 40 year old lady with a recurrent leg infection were there through no result of poor road safety

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by F6_Ute

I'm sure they can & I'm guessing it might come under neg driving??? or is there a particular offence for it??? I've never seen nor heard of anyone being pulled over for it so I don't know ... I'd love to hear if anyone has!

I see dozens of extreme cases of tailgating (drivers following by less than a car length travelling at >100kph on the M4) every week, the point is it doesn't get policed. At that speed the tailgating driver has less than 0.2sec to respond to what's going on in front, this less than the average human reaction speed ... a 2 second gap (the minimum recommend in good conditions) at that speed is over 50m or half a football field - sadly too few drivers actually leave this sort of a gap


I've heard of this also, I've heard licences are suspended on the spot for tailgating at speeds over 100kph - not sure how the mechanics of their methods for policing this work but it's two simple factors, speed & distance, it can't be that hard

No arguments from me, whilst cameras could be programmed to take photos of this type of thing, it wouldnt be able to discriminate if someone had just pulled in front of you making you look the culprit etc.

Yep, police on the roads need to sort this bad behaviour out, though this behaviour and people being denied "their right to travel at over the speed limit" are closely linked.

[geckoGT]

A perception and reaction time of 3 or 4 seconds is possible. 4 seconds at 100 km/hr means the car travels 110 metres before the brakes are applied

.

Each time you move your view from one point to another, you effectively restart the acquisition, perception and reaction clock, but of course you already know that.

By the way, I got that quote from here;
http://www.sdt.com.au/safedrive-dire...NGDISTANCE.htm

I have also seen the same figures in other areas including state government road safety literature (having done advanced driving courses in military, civilian and emergency services across 3 states I have seen a few).

[F6_Ute]

getting off my beef about tailgating for a moment - I'm not so sure a 2 second round trip for your eyes from the road to the speedo & back is practical nor necessary - no matter how good a driver you may be, an awful lot can happen in those 2 seconds

driving is a continual observational exercise and knowing what's out the front windscreen is just as important as knowing what's next to you, behind you, in your blind-spots & what your instrument panel is telling you, including your speed

a glance down to the speedo & back taking all of half a second is all that's needed, sometimes you might have to double it up with a second glance - but these glances are all that's needed particularly if you drive the same car regularly, you know exactly where the speedo is, what it looks like & you should have a good feel for the speed you're actually doing so know where to expect the needle indicator (if that's your type of speedo) to be. It's not as though you need to determine if you're going 78kph or 79kph (the discussion on tollerances of speedos is testament to this) - in this case a quick glance can easily be used to determine you're travelling at just under 80kph & that's all that's needed ... a half-second glance vs a two second look? I know which I prefer - if you're not already doing it, try it out

it's the same with the mirrors, only glances are necessary and doing them consistantly so you can 'build a picture' in ur mind of what's around you - and of course all this is much easier to do all this when you keep a nice healthy gap to the car in front

[prydey]

sudszy - the ADR regarding under reading speedo's was introduced in 2006. before that, within 10% either way was acceptible tolerance. you don't need to have a 25yr old car to have a perfectly legal car with a speedo that under reads. the problem now is the tolerances no longer allow for the drivers of these cars.

you keep accusing people of building strawmen, and yet you stick to the notion that if you obey the limits, you won't have an accident. irony much!

[ray38l]

I don't know why people try and and convince this sudszy moron that he is wrong. He knows he is wrong but loves the attention like all trolls do.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by F6_Ute

getting off my beef about tailgating for a moment - I'm not so sure a 2 second round trip for your eyes from the road to the speedo & back is practical nor necessary - no matter how good a driver you may be, an awful lot can happen in those 2 seconds

driving is a continual observational exercise and knowing what's out the front windscreen is just as important as knowing what's next to you, behind you, in your blind-spots & what your instrument panel is telling you, including your speed

a glance down to the speedo & back taking all of half a second is all that's needed, sometimes you might have to double it up with a second glance - but these glances are all that's needed particularly if you drive the same car regularly, you know exactly where the speedo is, what it looks like & you should have a good feel for the speed you're actually doing so know where to expect the needle indicator (if that's your type of speedo) to be. It's not as though you need to determine if you're going 78kph or 79kph (the discussion on tollerances of speedos is testament to this) - in this case a quick glance can easily be used to determine you're travelling at just under 80kph & that's all that's needed ... a half-second glance vs a two second look? I know which I prefer - if you're not already doing it, try it out

it's the same with the mirrors, only glances are necessary and doing them consistantly so you can 'build a picture' in ur mind of what's around you - and of course all this is much easier to do all this when you keep a nice healthy gap to the car in front

You perceive it as taking 1/2 a second but the simple fact is it does not, it can not take that short time as the human body is not capable of that speed.

Have a go at this reaction time test at this website:
http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html

The best I could get was 0.2978 of a second with an average of just over 0.3 and my first attempt was about 0.34 of a second. Now think about it, I was already looking straight at it before I started it so my eyes had already focussed on it. When the green light comes on the longest delay was the image being picked up in my eyesight and my brain registering it and triggering the response, clicking the mouse button is the fast bit.

The act of looking at your speedo involves the same process, that is recognising the visual input and processing the information, just that action will take very close to 0.5 seconds. Add time to move your look from the road to the speedo and then for your lenses to change focal point to closer image and you have more time. Then when you swap back to the road a similar amount of time is taken to move your look back, again change focal point and process the information until you are back to ready to respond to hazards. No one could do this whole process in under a second. That is the idea of the HUD, it puts the information in the drivers field of view and able to be recoginised in the peripheral vision.

Try this, scroll to a random section of the page while you are looking at a point off to the distance, for example the far wall. Now turn your look to the computer and read the text in the front of the screen, notice how it is a bit blurry at first, that is because of the change in focal point. The lens in the human eye requires time to accommodate for that change and then the brain requires time to process the information.

After all the training I have done involving reaction times etc and the knowledge of the processes involved from a physiological point of view, I can not see how anyone can go from adequately focussed on the road to the speedo, register the information and then focus back on the road and register information in under 2 seconds, certainly not one second.

Perhaps my point of view is supported by the fact that I go to so many crashes where the statement "I only looked away for a second" are made. That is the main reason I am dead against even changing a song or answering a hands free phone whilst moving and in high risk areas.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

.

Each time you move your view from one point to another, you effectively restart the acquisition, perception and reaction clock, but of course you already know that.

By the way, I got that quote from here;
http://www.sdt.com.au/safedrive-dire...NGDISTANCE.htm

I have also seen the same figures in other areas including state government road safety literature (having done advanced driving courses in military, civilian and emergency services across 3 states I have seen a few).

The time required to recognise a dangerous situation and physically respond to it is not the same thing as a peripheral awareness to simply confirm where the needle on your speedo is where you expect it to be. (its not the same as some random message warning light on your dash coming up and having to focus on some fine print and decipher what it is)

That's why speedos are relatively large items and just the angle of the needle is a clue as to what it is reading. The brain has already ready for what type of info is going to be coming in before the peripheral glance is even taken. The physical aspect to apply either less or more throttle is not time spent looking away from the road either nor is it a critical whether this takes 0.2 secs or 5 secs.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Perhaps my point of view is supported by the fact that I go to so many crashes where the statement "I only looked away for a second" are made.

Who are you kidding, You know that these people suffered a major distraction, attention from road totally taken on finding the cd that slipped onto the floor, finding the radio station, getting the burning cigarette our of their crutch, finding the answer button on the phone......whatever, peripheral observation of a large needle on the dash can not be compared to these type of things.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

sudszy - the ADR regarding under reading speedo's was introduced in 2006. before that, within 10% either way was acceptible tolerance. you don't need to have a 25yr old car to have a perfectly legal car with a speedo that under reads. the problem now is the tolerances no longer allow for the drivers of these cars

Studies of the accuracy of the speedos in car in Aus have been done, in fact even though the regs for pre 2006 are +/- 10% it was found that speedos that under-read were basically as rare as hen's teeth anyway and the chances of be even more than 1 or 2km/h even smaller, basically manufacturers were already doing what the new reg stipulated anyway and that the 10% forgiveness was simply being abused.

Originally Posted by prydey

you keep accusing people of building strawmen, and yet you stick to the notion that if you obey the limits, you won't have an accident. irony much!

well you've just dont it again, please provide any statement Ive provided that says if one obeys the limits then an accident wont occur.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by F6_Ute

I'm sure they can & I'm guessing it might come under neg driving??? or is there a particular offence for it??? I've never seen nor heard of anyone being pulled over for it so I don't know ... I'd love to hear if anyone has!

Couple boys in my hometown got nailed for this - around a roundabout no less - Cops took a very dim view of it back when I was a kid, don't know if they still enforce it the way they used to...but they do. From memory, it was just tailgating on the ticket, ie following too closely, not as far as negligent driving.

Originally Posted by F6_Ute

getting off my beef about tailgating for a moment - I'm not so sure a 2 second round trip for your eyes from the road to the speedo & back is practical nor necessary - no matter how good a driver you may be, an awful lot can happen in those 2 seconds

driving is a continual observational exercise and knowing what's out the front windscreen is just as important as knowing what's next to you, behind you, in your blind-spots & what your instrument panel is telling you, including your speed

a glance down to the speedo & back taking all of half a second is all that's needed, sometimes you might have to double it up with a second glance - but these glances are all that's needed particularly if you drive the same car regularly, you know exactly where the speedo is, what it looks like & you should have a good feel for the speed you're actually doing so know where to expect the needle indicator (if that's your type of speedo) to be. It's not as though you need to determine if you're going 78kph or 79kph (the discussion on tollerances of speedos is testament to this) - in this case a quick glance can easily be used to determine you're travelling at just under 80kph & that's all that's needed ... a half-second glance vs a two second look? I know which I prefer - if you're not already doing it, try it out

it's the same with the mirrors, only glances are necessary and doing them consistantly so you can 'build a picture' in ur mind of what's around you - and of course all this is much easier to do all this when you keep a nice healthy gap to the car in front

I'm with you on that one - there's glances and there's completely removing your eyes, peripheral vision is also very helpful in these instances, but once again - it's an individual response, and won't be the same for everyone.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Have a go at this reaction time test at this website:
http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html

I got a best of .233 of a second on that test, with an average of .2612 over the five runs, but I don't believe that's an accurate guage of how long it takes to be honest, it's just like putting a ruler in your hand an dropping it to see how many cm are gained.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The lens in the human eye requires time to accommodate for that change and then the brain requires time to process the information.

I'll be honest, if there's going to be an issue about checking your speedo because it takes too long, then the same should apply for mirrors - which it does not. Most agree that checking your mirrors is a standard part, if the focus is going to be that you just don't have time to check your speedo all the time because your eyes need to focus, does the same not apply for your mirrors? Your eyes need to focus no matter what you're looking into. True distractions (phones, music, passengers in the car) are a different thing entirely.

Let me make it quite clear, I don't dispute what you have learned, I just dispute that speedos and mirrors are completely different. Fair enough you see a shape in your mirror, the needle on most speedos is a different colour, we know where the guage starts and stops (ie min & max speeds), how can we not know how fast we're going...?

As said, I don't necessarily agree with the cameras and what they represent, but I refuse to be told that it takes too long to look at a speedo. Most of us on here would have a rough idea of how fast they are going without even looking at a speedo, I don't know about you guys, but I do feel the difference when my car accelerates. I also know where on the pedal my foot needs to be positioned to ensure that I'm in the right ballpark with regard to speed. And some of you have been driving for a hell of a lot longer than I have.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

please provide any statement Ive provided that says if one obeys the limits then an accident wont occur.

Originally Posted by sudszy

I appreciate you get a different perspective from your job, but you have people complaining about cameras riding in your ambulances?, says something about why they may have ended up in there in the first place!

you infer that people who speed end up in ambulances. bear in mind, all these discussions we keep having are regarding the extremely low tolerances, so obviously the speeding you infer is only 1 or 2km/h over the limit.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Studies of the accuracy of the speedos in car in Aus have been done, in fact even though the regs for pre 2006 are +/- 10% it was found that speedos that under-read were basically as rare as hen's teeth anyway and the chances of be even more than 1 or 2km/h even smaller, basically manufacturers were already doing what the new reg stipulated anyway and that the 10% forgiveness was simply being abused.

in the years leading up to 2006, between 5 - 800 000 cars were sold annually, and none of them were required to have a speedo more accurate than at least +/- 10%, and yet studies have been done (must've been extensive) to show that the govt didn't need to take this into consideration when setting camera tolerances??

studies have also been done that show cameras can't save lives and they are nothing but cash cows.

[flappist]

If you all read the original post.

The Premier of NSW, not some self appointed secret internet "expert", has stated that there will be an investigation into speed cameras and their effectiveness in reducing the road toll as opposed to raising revenue.

This is will always upset a small part of the "pseudo academic expert" community as it may show that they were WRONG and that is the worst possible outcome as it would mean they were actually NOT experts at all.

The more and more likely that they will be shown to be wrong the more and more they will thrash about using every and any debating or lobbying technique available (other than actual evidence) in the vane hope of bluffing some sort of support for their position.

The irony is that since the dawn of time "academic experts" have been frustrated by reality inconveniently failing to support their theories.

Some just accept this and move on while others just wander about find small communities on which to push their flawed thinking until finally they manage to bring together traditional opposition groups in an alliance against them.

sudszy believes he is right. Not because of evidence, nor popular opinion but purely because there is no other way he could be. sudszy must be right because he can never be wrong........

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

you infer that people who speed end up in ambulances. bear in mind, all these discussions we keep having are regarding the extremely low tolerances, so obviously the speeding you infer is only 1 or 2km/h over the limit

if you obey the limits, you won't have an accident = the suggestion that people who end up in ambulances may not represent a balanced cross section of society? is that the best you can do?

we must have be speaking different levels of english.

(they couldnt be the people that are more likely to accidents, risk taking behaviour, poor judgement, ill health? or are they just random?) Im sure Getcko will enlighten us.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

If you all read the original post.

The Premier of NSW, not some self appointed secret internet "expert", has stated that there will be an investigation into speed cameras and their effectiveness in reducing the road toll as opposed to raising revenue.
...

I think that's what is unsettling people on either side. He mentions an audit, to the anti camera folks, that equals perhaps whether they are cost effective, to the pro camera folks it suggests that the investigation will be done by a few accountants and not people who have any expertise in road safety.

Perhaps he could come clean and put up exactly how the "audit" may be done and by whom.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The sensible thing to do would be to go 10% below the limit if you are in a car that old, until you are certain as to how the reading relates to the real speed. People doing 10% lower than the speed limit would cause speed discrepancy flow problems? well it would be less a problem than we have now where some people actually drive 10% below the limit(taking the 60km/h limit for what it means) and some drive 10% above because they know they can get away with it!

S,
Whilst there are many philosophical differences aired here, I want to point out one that seems to be rarely if ever mentioned.

Minor difference in road speed (like the 10% you mention) in an area where safe overtaking is possible is results in a much safer environment than many cars traveling at much the same speed.
This is one reason why I am against unrealistically low speed limits.

Cars traveling at the same speed will always be traveling together, if cars are allowed to separate the roads are safer.

I am putting this forward as opinion based on 30 years of driving (some professional).

[steve.zissou]

The big issue here is the $$$$ the govt get. It corrupts them - no one can question that. It just turns it into a tax and has nothing to do with road safety.

I Don’t have a problem with cameras if they :
1)Remove the financial penalties. If getting caught by a camera meant you had to do a road safety course with the length of said course determined by the amount over the speed limit you were detected.
1) have a bit of common sense associate with them. If your caught doing 10 over on an empty road you get a warning - just like a real cop would do.

The fact that the govt would be spending money on road safety (running the courses and cameras) would go some ways to making sure that road safety funds are used effectively (you can tell the RTA is getting too much money from this as they sponsor a bloody cricket team - speed blitz blues - tell me that that money is worthwhile).

A side benefit of the course idea is that it costs everyone the same amount of their time and is much fairer ($150 fine for a millionaire is nothing) but 5 hours of someone’s time crosses all demographics

Dont forget - write to your representatives - if they dont think you care that they are ripping every one off under the guise of road safty they wont change it.

[F6_Ute]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You perceive it as taking 1/2 a second but the simple fact is it does not, it can not take that short time as the human body is not capable of that speed.

Have a go at this reaction time test at this website:
http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html

The best I could get was 0.2978 of a second with an average of just over 0.3 and my first attempt was about 0.34 of a second...

Agree, that's all well & good, and very much in tune with the tailgating issue & response time to react to what's going on around you.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The act of looking at your speedo involves the same process...

Not quite. The flaw in this line of argument is looking at the speedo is not a reactive process, you're not reacting to a random stimuli telling you when you're allowed to look at the speedo - if it were, then yes that would apply.
Rather it's a conscious decision made ahead of time and thus this reaction time simply doesn't apply & is not time your eyes are actually off the road.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

(they couldnt be the people that are more likely to accidents, risk taking behaviour, poor judgement, ill health? or are they just random?) Im sure Getcko will enlighten us.

so, just to be clear, driving at 1 or 2km/h over the limit is 'risk taking behavour'??

i'll ask you again, what do you set your speed alert to? and have you ever heard it chime?

[weenie]

Originally Posted by prydey

so, just to be clear, driving at 1 or 2km/h over the limit is 'risk taking behavour'??

i'll ask you again, what do you set your speed alert to? and have you ever heard it chime?

160km/hr Sir It did go off recently, i thought it was the rev limiter warning, as it had gone off only seconds earlier in a lower gear.

[F6_Ute]

Originally Posted by weenie

160km/hr Sir It did go off recently, i thought it was the rev limiter warning, as it had gone off only seconds earlier in a lower gear.

ahaha

[Ben73]

In regards to the time looking at speedo. I think most of us would only take 1 second to read the speedo. If we are on the highway and do not have cruise control we will probably be looking down at the speedo every 20 seconds to make sure that it has not creeped up to 111km/h.

A while ago I figured out a 1 second glace every 20 seconds means on a trip between Sydney and Brisbane you will be looking at your speedo for well over 30 mins.
Imagine how many things you pass in 30 mins at highway speeds!!!

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by prydey

so, just to be clear, driving at 1 or 2km/h over the limit is 'risk taking behavour'??

Its all a load of %^#.
At the limit you are fine, but 2kmh over and they will have you believe you are walking on death row.

If 2km/h over is deadly. Why is the speed limit so close to a 'deadly' speed.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Ben73

In regards to the time looking at speedo. I think most of us would only take 1 second to read the speedo. If we are on the highway and do not have cruise control we will probably be looking down at the speedo every 20 seconds to make sure that it has not creeped up to 111km/h.

A while ago I figured out a 1 second glace every 20 seconds means on a trip between Sydney and Brisbane you will be looking at your speedo for well over 30 mins.
Imagine how many things you pass in 30 mins at highway speeds!!!

This right here is the problem...

How frequently do you check your side and review mirrors?

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard...who looks at their speedo every 20 seconds? No one.

I'm sorry, but I'm starting to wonder if you really do drive??

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Its all a load of %^#.
At the limit you are fine, but 2kmh over and they will have you believe you are walking on death row.

If 2km/h over is deadly. Why is the speed limit so close to a 'deadly' speed.

Ben, I think you are putting up a strawman , no road safety message I’ve heard has ever claimed that if you exceed the limit by 1km/h etc that your car will crash and burn ......whatever.

Im sure there are many here who will tell you they are perfectly safe at 10km/h over, 15km/h over 20km/h over etc because they do it all the time haven’t had an accident in 15 years, or those that say I drive home ****ed every week, nothing ever happens Im fine.

Hence the 1000s of people out there like yourself who don’t perceive any added risk in exceeding the limits, but the unfortunate reality is that the stats will tell us that as people push the limits, even marginally then accidents and their severity increase.

Ben if you just drove on your own property, Id say fine do whatever you like, but you are out there on public roads doing 5-10km/h more, putting my family, everyone elses family at risk.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

S,

This is one reason why I am against unrealistically low speed limits.

Cars traveling at the same speed will always be traveling together, if cars are allowed to separate the roads are safer.

I am putting this forward as opinion based on 30 years of driving (some professional).

im sure that having less people on the road or having larger following distances between vehicles makes it safer, but what you are proposing, having everyone constantly overtake each other flies in the face of sensible road practices.

Even the 85 percentile method of determining speed limits(not a great system for determining appropriate limits) bases its premise that the closer all traffic is to the mean speed then the less accidents will occur.

This was recently demonstrated in Utah where the speed limit on the freeways was raised to 80mph, the accident rate changed little, which had many on forums like this jumping up and down saying faster is safer. But all that happened was Utah simply legalised what was already happening, the present limit wasnt being enforced and the law abiding people who were doing the limit of 60mph now travelled at closer to 80mph reducing the incidence of speed discrepancy related incidents, yet the accident/carnage rate remained the same as this was offset due to the the decrease in safety generated by the higher overall speed.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

im sure that having less people on the road or having larger following distances between vehicles makes it safer, but what you are proposing, having everyone constantly overtake each other flies in the face of sensible road practices.

Even the 85 percentile method of determining speed limits(not a great system for determining appropriate limits) bases its premise that the closer all traffic is to the mean speed then the less accidents will occur.

This was recently demonstrated in Utah where the speed limit on the freeways was raised to 80mph, the accident rate changed little, which had many on forums like this jumping up and down saying faster is safer. But all that happened was Utah simply legalised what was already happening, the present limit wasnt being enforced and the law abiding people who were doing the limit of 60mph now travelled at closer to 80mph reducing the incidence of speed discrepancy related incidents, yet the accident/carnage rate remained the same as this was offset due to the the decrease in safety generated by the higher overall speed.

Cool, by that reasoning the speed limit in QLD can be raised to 140km/h which is what most people do away from the "tax zone".

[XR6Noir]

Originally Posted by sudszy

This was recently demonstrated in Utah where the speed limit on the freeways was raised to 80mph, the accident rate changed little, which had many on forums like this jumping up and down saying faster is safer. But all that happened was Utah simply legalised what was already happening, the present limit wasnt being enforced and the law abiding people who were doing the limit of 60mph now travelled at closer to 80mph reducing the incidence of speed discrepancy related incidents, yet the accident/carnage rate remained the same as this was offset due to the the decrease in safety generated by the higher overall speed.

It's obvious some people are only here to be faceless keyboard experts, completely ignoring the original topic of discussion on the basis that everyone else is in the wrong.
Yet to see any participation from this entity here, on a Ford Forum, that isn't trolling and thrashing against the tide ad nauseam.

It would seem there's an agenda being pushed at every opportunity.
The good news is they've already lost the first battle, with plenty more to come...

There has been a change for the better and the reviews are underway, with the plans for reduced tolerances already scrapped.
Get over it.