Unbelievable arrogance and sheer idiocy
I was going to stay out of this debate for reasons that may be clear to some later in my post, but I suspect some may not quite understand. I was quite prepared to stay out of it until I read several of the posts that have been made.
I suspect that my post will cause some angst amongst the Moderators, if so, I will accept whatever restriction/s they may place upon my privileges on the forum. I accept responsibility for that.
Unless you are a qualified road engineer I suspect you are not really qualified or equipped to make the sorts of blanket generalisations that have been made about what sort of speed is safe on a particular road.
Just because you may have made a number of trips at speeds in excess of the speed limit without mishap does not mean that the roads are "quite suitable and safe for those kinds of speeds" as has been suggested.
The vast majority of fatal and serious injury collisions occur on roads that are not classed as freeways but on roads that have traffic lights, intersections, etc etc in them to regulate traffic flow and allow access to areas.
In my opinion, anyone who believes that they are able to travel at 160 or 180 on any road in Australia is an absolute fool and has absolutely no right whatsoever to be on the roads.
Particularly if they then make the absolutely laughable claim that they are a professional driver. Crap, you deliver stuff for a living, it just happens that you deliver that stuff by truck. A person who drives to make a living is not a professional driver. They are a paid courier, thats all. Schumaker is a professional driver, Colin MacCrea is a professional driver, a vehicle tester for Ford or Holden is a professional driver.
I happen to be a copper and after going to many 1000's of collisions, dozens of them fatalities and more that resulted in serious injury, I have no problems with prosecuting those who think that they know better than qualified road engineers or believe that the freeways in this country can be driven on at speeds of 160 or 180 safely. Driving is a privilege, not a right and those who cannot abide by laws that apply to the exercise of that privilege can walk, use public transport, whatever. But if you cannot abide by the laws applicable to driving, then don't drive.
Nor do I have much time for those unthinking commentators who make blanket generalisations that the parents must have fallen down on the job as parents.
Next time you think about opening your mouth to come out with such offensive, rude, arrogant commentary on a subject that you have minimal experience of, just stop for one second and consider who is going to read what you post.
I have no doubt whatsoever, that within any random selected group of 100 forum members there will be at least one who has lost a family member, child, friend or work mate in a fatal collision and at least another dozen at a minimum who have been affected by the effects of serious injury collisions.
Any such forum members as I describe above who read that particular comment I refer to could not help but be anything but hurt, offended and angry at it and at the person who made it.
Lets hear some reasoning China, not just unsubstantiated claims
Quote:
Originally Posted by
China
Vernov you think that speed is a Major factor in collisions, don't beleive what you are told do your own reaserch and you will find that you statement is wrong, as for ray's comment, I beleive he is misinformed. Most people think speed camera's are acurate because that is what we are told but I am afraid it could not be farther from the truth. When this blatant misinformation is somehow reversed then we can start solving some of the real causes of motor vehical collisions
Ok China, as I said quite a few things in my post, can you be more specific as to where I am misinformed? You believe that I am misinformed, explain why you hold that belief please, rather than just claiming it without explanation. I am curious.
I am also curious as to why you believe that the statement by Vernon is wrong. How about instead of just making a claim that another is wrong, how about providing some evidence of your own to prove Vernon's statement wrong, rather than just saying it is wrong.
I am not sure how speed cameras came into this argument, but since it has, I will put my perspective forward. I am speaking for myself here, not in any way in an official capacity, something that I cannot do.
Speed cameras are accurate to a legal standard. A legal standard is not the same standard as a scientific standard. A legal standard can be reached through a scientific analysis of the instrument and establishing what the performance parameters are if certain operating conditions exist and criteria are met. The legal standard merely says that a device, operated in certain conditions and in a certain manner will give a result, accurate to within 2 or 3 kilometres per hour depending upon the instrument. That degree of precision or accuracy is accepted by legislators and Courts of law as a standard of accuracy or precision sufficient for the purposes of the Road Safety Act in Victoria. Is it a standard that a scientist would be satisfied with? Perhaps, perhaps not, it is largely irrelevant as scientists are not the people determining what the required standard should be.
Each speed measuring device, be it fixed or mobile radar, laser, digitector, camera of whatever description all have a tolerance. This tolerance varies from device type to device type and from laser to laser, radar to radar, camera to camera. Parliament has recognised this fact and to allow for that variance for a legal standard, the Act which names each device as a "prescribed device" for the purposes of the Act, the Act also legislates what that tolerance allowance must be.
That is why whenever a person is prosecuted for an offence whereby the evidence that we rely upon derives from one of these devices, the penalty notice or charge sheet always includes both the detected speed and the alleged speed. The Act states that the alleged speed is obtained by subtracting the prescribed tolerance from the detected speed.
If you believe that "speed kills" and other such theories are wrong, then I have no doubt that if you can prove them wrong and identify the real cause, I am sure that once you provide that evidence to Vic Roads, Monash University Accident Research Centre, lawmakers and legislators, Victoria Police, Traffic Accident Commission and all other parties who have an interest in the field, then the collective efforts would be refocussed in a second.
I haven't yet seen in any post a claim that speed is the ONLY cause of fatal or serious injury collisions. Are there other contributors? Absolutely.
Alcohol, drugs, speed, road condition, weather condition, human error, inexperience, fatigue, bad luck, poor decision making, peer pressure, ignorance, vehicle condition, vehicle design, vehicle malfunction, laws of physics, roadside environmental design, lack of confidence, misplaced or excessive confidence, poor reflexes, insufficient or non existent skills.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but in every single collision I have ever been to, at least one of these factors has been the trigger for the collision.
My opinions as expressed in my first post are formed through attending over the course of the last 19 years, in excess of 30 fatal collisions and 100's if not 1000's of serious injury collisions and well into the 1000's minor injury and non injury collisions. It is formed through from a trained, experienced and thorough analysis of the human and physical evidence that is left behind in each and every collision scene. I have been able to give my opinions as to the cause of collisions and what happened in particular collisions to Magistrates, Judges and Coroners on numerous occasions and my expertise has been recognised and accepted by these Courts.
So now that I have put forward the basis upon which I have formed my opinions about the causes of fatalities or serious injury collisions, it is now your turn China. I await your post eagerly, explain to me how exactly I have been misinformed.