I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by TermiMonster
SWMBO wasn't aware she was in the wrong, I wouldn't have thought so either.
Printable View
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by TermiMonster
SWMBO wasn't aware she was in the wrong, I wouldn't have thought so either.
If you read the rules for ACT:
If you are "stopped" then you can get booked.
If you are "parked" then it is ok.
The rules for the difference between stopped and parked are vague.
Firstly, there was no crime, and therefore no fine to pay and all I have done is put forward scenarios. Where do you get bellyaching out of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Well I must be the unlucky one. Since I have owned GPS I have owned three vehicles - EVERY ONE of which had a speedo that read lower than the actual speed being travelled. All had standar sized wheels and tyres and no modifications that could affect the speedo reading. I have used the GPS in the daughter's car as well and it read just a little over the speed. A hire car read quite a bit over when I had it once but a friend's car I borrowed when I was in Queensland also read under the speed compared to the GPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
So four out of six cars I have used my GPS in are defective? Maybe I have been unluckybut that does give me the impression that not all speedos read over, probably far from it.
I take it you were referring to naming people whose life has been saved by a speed camera. I can name people who have been killed or injured on the roads too - so where were the speed cameras that were supposed to save them? As you said yourself, we all know plenty of people who have become part of the road toll and how could this be if speed cameras were effective? The question was designed to make people think, and your thoughts on the question go a long way towards proving that speed cmeras are not effective. Well not for saving lives anyway. Just for revenue raising.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Cheers
Doug
WA police and mobile phone offenders.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8a249J9KYY
Note near the end the woman using a mobile phone and the bike sitting next to he with red and blues flashing.
I was a professional driver for many years and I don't care whether it is hand held or hands free, both are dangerous. Next time after you get off a hands free call try and remember what happened while you are on the phone and I bet you can't remember any of it. When I worked that out unless I could pull over the phone (hands free) did not get answered.
Hi doug 3030,
Has it occurred to you that may be it it your GPS that is telling porkies and not all those speedos?
Regards
car 1 - gps number 1Quote:
Originally Posted by A Duke
car 2 - gps number 1 and number 2 - readings exactly the same
Car 3 - gps number 2 and 3 - readings exactly the same
The way I have measured the speed by GPS leaves little scope for error. All three vehicles have cruise control. measurement was made on a straight flat road with cruise control set for at least 2 minutes to allow for the setting to stabilize.
It is no surprise that under those conditions there is no difference between the gps readings, assuming you know how a GPS works.
Cheers
Doug
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the answer, I Was not clear that you had used more than one GPS.
No I do not really know how a GPS works I usually know where I am going and have not needed one yet.
Regards
How many satellites did you get and what was the GPS, a phone? if it was a phone it only has a resolution of 1 or 2hz a second and that is hit and miss for accuracy. The loggers we use work at 10hz a second and I do not trust the accuracy at all, huge lag at all times against a physical speed sensor. We know it's inaccurate because the difference between the two speeds shown varies at the same physical speed, if it were the same each time then I would question it.
What gets me about the phone laws is that it's illegal to use a phone while driving, but I can smoke or scoff a burger while driving and talking to a passenger - carrying on a conversation with one hand off the wheel, the same as if I was on the phone.
If I get in a situation where I need both hands for the wheel I would drop the phone without a second thought - but I'm going to have second, third and fourth thoughts about where I drop a cig or a burger.
And before you all flame me I am pointing this out, I dont use my phone when driving, I usually have the radio too loud to hear it, but rarely answer the silly thing when it does ring whether I'm driving or not.
As for speedo accuracy, I just found the ADR's and for 2006 & beyond they state speedo's cannot read low but can read high - cars & trucks +6kph, mopeds +4kph and motorbikes +8kph.
My 04 BA Falcon is thus outside the rules, when I have the GPS on the speedo reads about 8k less than the GPS.
The thing that I can't understand about the mobile phone laws is that you can't talk on your mobile but how many taxis, trucks and caravans (dare I say police cars!) have a 2 way radio of some type and they are happily using these all day every day?
If we are going to be consistent (heaven forbid) then the use of those should be banned as well.
Unless you train yourself to drop it, you probably won't drop it. anyway by the time you drop it, it might be too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by smidsy
It was interesting to see that the guy that ran into me did not drop his phone and tried to get out of my way at the last minute still holding his mobile. He even got out of his car still holding it.
The speed is calculated continuously by the GPS several times a second. The speed it displays is a moving average of the speeds measured over a predetermined time. This is done so that the displays a little bit more steady and does not change with every reading the GPS measures. The longer the timeframe of the moving average the longer the "lag" period in displaying a change of speed. If the physical speed sensor is displaying realtime then this is why you are experiencing the lag on the GPS display.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
When I have made comparisons between the speedo and the displayed speed on the GPS, the car has been in cruise control on a flat straight road with the GPS display reading the same figure for quite a while, thus neutralising the effects of the lag caused by the moving average. It was not a phone that I used and I would have to switch to a different screen to see the number of satellites, and I am not going to do that at 100km/hr.
My last three cars mentioned above that all have speedos reading low were 1998, 2002 and 2003 and thus not covered by this rule either, but there are still a hell of a lot of cars out there that are completely legal whose drivers can be booked for innocently trusting the accuracy of their speedo.Quote:
Originally Posted by smidsy
Cheers
Doug
It was explained to me by a copper, sometime in the 90s, that the NSW offence was "not having two hands on the wheel" when I asked about the legalilty of the CB radio usage - so yes, that is illegal as well here. That may have changed or been reworded, I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
Police are exempt from that in just the same way that they can do an otherwise illegal u-Turn to chase a car.
Heh, heh. However, outside Sutherland Courts one day (again in the 90s) a copper pulled up and parked, and he was on his phone all that time. I waited until he got out and said "I just got booked for that the other day" and to my surprise he said "Ok,OK, you got me, I shouldn't have been doing it. We've just been on a drug bust" and he held up a bag of an odd green looking herb (which I of course didn't recognise). Perhaps that was before they were made exempt from the law (for the phone thing :;)?
Watch the beginning of the movie Wolf Creek 2:minigun::piggy::piggy:
I just thought that I might elaborate a bit more on how the GPS works in this regard in case anyone is interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
When a GPS works out your location it could be off by several metres. As I said earlier, the unit calculates your speed several times a second. Now given that it is not reading your exact location each time, say you are travelling at 10 metres per second (36 km/hr).
The GPS makes say 10 readings in the first second all finding your position within 2 metres of accuracy. Lets say they are:
8 metres/sec
9.5 metres/sec
11 metres/sec
10.8 metres/sec
8.7 metres/sec
12 metres/sec
10.5 metres/sec
9 metres/sec
9.2 metres/sec
11.3 metres/sec
If the GPS did not work on a moving average, the displayed speed would be flicking between 28.8 and 43.2 km/hr so often that you could not read it and the data would be of little use anyway. If the display is programmed to show a moving average of the speeds calculated over the last second it will display 36.0 km/hr, because it has averaged out its own inaccuracies of measurements (this is of course simplified), there are often higher or lower biases in the data collected.
It is therefore a juggling act to make the timeframe of the moving average long enough to give a satisfactory reading but not so long as to produce too much lag.
Most GPS users would have experienced coming to a stop at a red light and looking at the GPS for the distance to the next turn and seeing that the car is still supposedly traveling at say 8 km/hr, then 4 km/hr then finally 0 km/hr as the moving average finally catches up with reality. This is why you see that.
When you drive under an overpass or bridge, the GPS will miss several signals from the satellites, which can mess up the moving average, so it often happens that as you emerge from under the bridge and the satellite signals are again being received, the GPS misinterprets the data by thinking that you have traveled further than you really have in the time elapsed and momentarily displays a high reading for your speed.
Many people, particularly those with knowledge of conventional navigation, believe that the GPS determines your position by measuring the direction to the satellites (like performing a resection) but this is not the case. The GPS actually works on calculating the distance from the satellites by calculating the time elapsed from the transmission of the signal until it is received. The satellites are geo-stationary and their locations are programmed into the calculations the GPS makes. It determines your location by finding the only point on the surface of the earth that is the required distance from a minimum of three measurements from different satellites rather than a direction to them.
My GPS goes stupid in the Melbourne CBD because the signals reflect off the glass sides of the highrise buildings, causing it to receive conflicting data, such as the same signal from the same satellite received a split second later than another identical signal, as one or more signals has reflected off a building.
All of the above is a very simplistic version of how it works. If anyone wants to elaborate, feel free, but I do not want to make it any more confusing than it already is.
Cheers
Doug
Yes, ours is 10 times per second, the average GPS used in cars is about 2 times per second at best. We have experimented with twenty times a second but it gave no better results so it was ditched. Everyone gets hung up on GPS accuracy and I am far from an expert, more of an observer and serious user for sport purposes over the last six or seven years. We use it for lap times as well but again it never gives the same results as a physical transponder, close but never the same. If it were as accurate as some would want to believe the F1 teams of this world would use it and they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
[QUOTE]It looks like I am not alone with my thinkingQuote:
Originally Posted by AlexS;1850121
[QUOTE
www.caradvice.com.au/332771/are-speed-cameras-killing-us-the-stats-say-yes/
Are speed cameras killing us? The stats say yes
Read more at http://www.caradvice.com.au/332771/a...iUDf3s9RHv8.99
To quote a couple of relevant paragraphs:
Quote:
The unfortunate reality of speed camera-biased enforcement can be demonstrated with the tragic death of pedestrian Anthony Parsons and husband and wife Savva and Ismini Menelaou, who were passengers in a Ford Falcon struck at the intersection of Warrigal and Dandenong roads in Oakleigh, Victoria last year.
Brazilian national Nei Lima DaCosta was high on ice and drove through one fixed speed camera at 30km/h over the speed limit minutes before careering through the intersection of Warrigal and Dandenong roads at 120km/h (40km/h over the speed limit) through another speed and red light camera. He killed three innocent people. These two cameras did nothing to help save the lives of three innocent people.
and
The statistics presented in the article clearly show that the only thing that the presence of speed cameras have changed is the amount of revenue the government gets.Quote:
Those people that use the idiom “don’t speed and you won’t get caught” simply don’t understand the reality of driving safely. If I had the preference of watching the road or my speedometer, I know which one I would choose.
Have a read of the article and the comments that follow. Note how quickly anyone who suggests that speed cameras are effective in lowering the road toll are shot to pieces. They are revenue raising - pure and simple.
Cheers
Doug
EDIT: or have a look at this: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8954478/drivers-fined-for-low-level-speeding
I had a read, a pretty shallow analysis in my view. The claim that camera actually cause deaths is fanciful and typical of the sorts of analysis done by reporters these days. Take a couple of stats and makes all sorts of claims. Increasing hospital length stays could be saying more about the over servicing that typically happens in the health system more than it does about car accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
The sorts of people I would take more notice of in this area are a professional motor vehicle accident data analysts. I happened to know couple of people that work in this field, these people have higher degrees in Mathematics, statistics and public health.and they have been working in this area for more than 20 years. Their view is that untangling road accident statistics and causes is very difficult and coming up with meaningful relationships is even harder - given the numbers of variables involves puts it in the "Global warming" category of toughness or maybe even harder.
The relationships involved between motor vehicle accident deaths and injuries are neither simple and most definitely "non-linear" and often counter intuitive - just because something goes up or down doesn't mean that something goes up/down in proportion. There's a fair bit of estimating (yes guessing) involved with all this but the last people I would leave the guessing to are average joe's including reporters.
Personally I don't really care if it's just a revenue raising exercise.
If we have to tax someone then speeders are OMHO as good a target as most and maybe even better than most other taxes i.e. you pay for the privilege.
If the choice is to raise income tax, or raise GST, then I would favour a rise in speeding fines.
I do agree with a couple of things in that article at the end where he talks about stopping more people for drug detection and better driver education. One piece of education that needs to come through is that drivers need to realise that a motor vehicle is not a piece of mobile private property and neither is the space around their vehicle.
OK - I'll play reporter with accident stats.
If speed cameras cause accidents/deaths then the states with the greatest number of cameras per capita/vehicle/km etc should have the highest deaths per capita/vehicle/km etc.
Now I haven't personally seen the data . . . . . hang on that's not what a reporter would say.
Ahemmm . . .. the data clearly shows that the states with the most cameras per capita/vehicle/km etc have the lowest deaths per capita/vehicle/km etc.
Well, this is the excuse the WA government are using to get more cameras.
Personally I just think we have more bogans and hoons per capita/vehicle/km etc :)
Thanks for your considered opinion Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
I just found this online, It is the Victorian version but I doubt the others are much different: file:///C:/Users/Doug/Desktop/VicPol-Mobile-Digital-Speed-Camera-Policy.pdf
Have a look at this bit on page 4:
WT?, they want you to pay the fine for speeding but they are doing everything they can to conceal from you exactly where it happened?Quote:
Where possible, sites in both metropolitan areas and regional locations should be definedby the closest intersecting streets on either side of the site with the entire length of a sitebeing kept to a minimum. In rural areas the site length should be no greater than 5kilometres. Speed zone signs should not be used to define a site boundary. This will makeit easier for motorists to determine (when referring to the infringement notice) where thealleged offence occurred.
then add in this:
If they not only will tell you exactly where the infringement allegedly occurred but also are deliberately conspiring to hide this information, how can you check up that they have complied with the rules?Quote:
Criteria 5
Careful background evaluation of each site shall be conducted for any sources of reflectionlocated in or near the radar beam position including;
a) The possibility of vehicles entering or leaving intersections, or travelling along service roads;
b) Pole mounted electricity supply transformers;
c) Mobile road safety camera set-ups should not include sites where there are train lines whichare obscured by dense foliage – such that the MRSCO is unable to determine whether a trainis present at the time a target vehicle is detected:d) Tram and train lines: Other than (c) above, the MRSCO must indicate on the Incident Log ofthe Camera Operator’s Set-up notes the times that any images are taken where a tram or trainis within the area of the beam;
Note: Where this occurrence is frequent, the site maybe deemed as permanentlyunsuitable or in the case of trains, restricted to operate on the opposite side of the roadway(where the train lines would be behind the speed camera)
e) Metal signs - house sale / auction signs and similar;
f) Centre strip traffic signs such as No U Turn, No Right / Left Turn, Keep Left, posted speedlimit signs and large advisory cross street signs;
g) Armco road barriers or chevron signing;
h) Metal bus stop shelters, public telephone booths, Australia Post letterboxes;
i) Sheet metal garage doors, fences, factory walls and fencing structures which comprise ofclosely spaced (10cm or less) vertical metal bars.
j) Brick/Masonry StructuresThese structures are divided into two parts;ƒ Masonry structures that are over one metre in height and;ƒ Very tall masonry structures such as factory walls.
And then there is this:
Last year in September I was booked for doing 101 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone for a cost of $185 and one demerit point and the location was given as "Westgate Freeway, vicinity of Palmers Rd OVERPASS".Quote:
Criteria 4
A site shall not be on or near an overpass, or facing any elevated adjacent road (entry orexit ramp) that may carry traffic through or near the radar beam area.
Had I read this manual at the time I would have challenged it. Tell me that is not blatant revenue raising and nothing else.
Cheers
Doug
EDIT: I forgot to mention that when I was booked fo r101 in a 100 zone my "LEGAL: speedo for a pre-2006 vehicle would have been reading 97 - 98 km/hr.
Then have a look at this:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1227172250212
Look at teh caption on the photo:
Quote:
Unreliable photos from fixed speed cameras are costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue.
Does it say unreliable speed cameras result in more accidents and deaths? No? Would have it said that if it was the case? I think yes. The only story there was the loss of government revenue.
Speedos are not allowed to read over. They can read up to 10% under. If your speedo is showing 100 and the GPS a higher speed then I suggest you do not have the specified tyres fitted or there have been other modifications to the vehicle.
Any are thatis open to and used by cars is a highway under the Act. McDonald's and like places fit that criteria.
In Victoria fines go to consolidated revenue. None goes to the police department.
Yeah but - no but - yeah but, . . . . . . you just like like a trouble makes so we'll throw the book at ya!Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
If you had bothered to read the thread before replying you would see that that matter has already been adequately covered and the legislation saying that speedos must read under was introduced in 2006. This is a 2003 vehicle we are talking about. If you want to jump in half way at least read the background.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeleigh
As previously stated, my wheels and tyres are standard and no other relevant modifications have been made to the vehicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smidsy
DougQuote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
I got booked a few years back on the motorcycle. Bruce highway, somewhere south of Bundy vicinty. I knew I was speeding, keen to get home, was doing 120kph on the bike speedo. GPS was reading 114kph. Got booked doing 114kph. GPS was a Garmin Montana. Same GPS has also been speed matched to those portable speed signs you find at roadworks sometimes.
I trust my GPS now!!
Anyway, speeding kills apparently, so dont do it.
Mark David, what have you started...this could easily be the elephant in the forum:o
While some things mentioned here seem a bit harsh, given what else goes on in the rest of Australia and the world my sympathies for speeders is low on my "sympathy priority list"
My experience with folks who constantly complain about being caught for speeding is that they are usually "boundary pushers"
The half dozen times they have been caught pales into insignificance compared to the 100's or 1000's of time they have been speeding.
These folks should think about it in terms of the whacks you got from your dad, and when you complained and said "I didn't do it" and then he said "Well that one is for the other times that I didn't catch you"
Yes I have been pinged for speeding (twice in 40+ years of driving) once I was doing 90 in a 70 and the young copper "liked my old BMW MC" and let me off with a warning, and the other time was about 5 years back and it was for doing 52 in a 40 roadworks area, right outside the main Perth cop shop in East Perth, I was daydreaming and shoulda paid more at attention -entirely my fault.
You might be right, aren't I naughty:D
Don't even get me started on the terrible freeway safety barriers! but thats another story (will save that one for later)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari2
There seems to be a new culture of even +1 over the limit will result in an infringement. Apparently the mobile RTA (non-cop) cameras are set to this in NSW. I think I previously stated that I had been informed by those who know that cameras were set to +10% +4, meaning that in a 60 zone you wouldn't be pinged until you hit 70 (60+6+4), and a 100 zone it would be 115. I have always though this was too generous, btw.
If this is the new culture (anything over) then a few things need to happen for fairness of the system:
- A publicity campaign to say anything over will get you a ticket (because I believe it's pretty widely known that there has always been leeway)
- An adjustment to the penalties, commensurate with the differences in braking distances. That is, there'd be bugger all difference in braking distance between 100 and 101 (Bob?), and probably only slightly more for 102-103. The point being that (say) the difference in braking distance is 2 metres (100/101). You may say "AHA! that 2 metres is the difference between hitting something or not". Well, yeeeeahhh, but I reckon hitting something at 1kph or less isn't going to do much (if any) damage - even to flesh. We need to be sensible about this.
- The penalties should no longer be for 10-14, 15-25 over the limit or whatever they are, but should be based on strictly percentages. Reasoning here is that 60 in a 40 zone is a helluva lot more dangerous than 130 in a 100 zone (usually a motorway). 60/40 is 50% more speed and therefore MUCH more braking distance. 130/110 is only 18% more speed by comparison but gets the same fine and points. Furthermore, braking, and particularly emergency braking is very rarely required on a motorway, whereas in close traffic I always have my very well trained left foot hovering over the brake (no contact - no constant irritating brake lights) so that the reaction/delay time is absolutely minimised. I drive an auto.
- I think to be fair, anything less than 5 over should not attract demerit points. ANYONE can drift over the limit by a tad under the various circumstances a driver has to cope with. There are more important things to look out for than a miserable +1 speed. I would argue that to maintain the speed precisely one would have to have the car in cruise control, and even then it will still go over under regular circumstances, plus the fact that not all car have CC. You would have to be constantly looking at the speedo, and as I say, that would be to a large safety detriment.
I wonder if I can work out a simple % system? Let's call it $10 for every 1% over the limit.
In a 40 zone: 41 gets you a $30 fine, no points, 45 gets you a $130 fine plus point(s), 60 (a common one I'll bet) gets you a $500 fine
In a 60 zone: 61 gets you a $20 fine, no points, 65 gets you a $90 fine plus point(s), 80 gets you a $330 fine
In a 80 zone: 81 gets you a $20 fine, no points, 85 gets you a $70 fine plus point(s), 100 gets you a $250 fine
In a 100 zone: 101 gets you a $10 fine, no points, 105 gets you a $50 fine plus point(s), 120 gets you a $200 fine
Well, that kinda appears to work roughly how the braking distance differences might work, and certainly brings a commensurate penalty for +20 in a 40 zone compared to a 100 zone.
Without the above, then this new era of "+1 and you're done" can ONLY seem to be revenue raising. Fair's fair.
There's a big misconception about speed limits. They are the maximum speed for a vehicle in good working order, with a moderate load, in good weather conditions, good visibility (i.e. not at night) and moderate traffic (fortunately in high traffic the speeds slow down naturally).
This means in most situations vehicles cars should probably only doing 5 to 10 k BELOW the speed limit. This obsession to be travelling at or 1 or two ks below the speed limit AT ALL TIMES is what we should be cracking on the head.
There has to be a line in the sand so I have no problem with picking people up that "drifted over the limit" even for 1 km an hour if the traffic conditions warrant it
If you are the kind of person that drifts +/- 5 km then you should sit at 5ks under the limit and you won't get pinged.
What I do have issue with is that the penalties for going slightly over should probably be reasonable and the stop used as an educational opportunity.
Largely agreed Bob, but Cameras (or their operators) don't take traffic conditions into consideration, or day/night.
I actually do sit a few kph under the limit to minimise drifting over as much as possible, but there are times when downhill + prevailing other priorities can result in drifting over. Edit: Around my local very hilly area I always have the (auto) transmission in second gear - needed for uphill, and acts as a brake downhill - there's almost no flat ground up here. end edit. I do pay quite a lot of attention to the speedo (or GPS) and as soon as I see a drift over I correct it. I guess that also needs to be taken into account - "how long was the infringement occurring for?". If it's just for a few seconds then no action should be taken as it is obvious the driver took corrective action. In NSW I know that this has been the case - in court I have heard coppers saying that they monitored it for so and so seconds and it was steady/increasing/decreasing. That to me indicated that if it was decreasing then that would be taken into account.
As far as getting the general population to usually drive at 5-10 below - I just can't see that happening. I've got a sneaking feeling that the logic behind the speed limits as they are set, plus the historic leeway factor, means that they really want us to stay less than 10kph over the limit. In other words, areas signed as 60 have been deemed "safe" at 70. If that is the case, in what seems to be the new regime of "+1 and you're done" the limits need to be set at the deemed safe limit and an intensive campaign of public awareness and education undertaken, and book anyone for going over by +1. No problem with that.
I mean, raising awareness is not a hard thing to do - a simple mailout to all drivers - they know where each and every one of us live.
That is all said based upon saving lives, and not raising revenue, of course. Far too often I've seen mobile cameras and radar guns set up at "gimme" locations where there are plenty of more dangerous places nearby to be speeding. For example, when I lived in the Southern Highlands there was a favourite spot on the motorway that was manned probably twice per week. I never saw a radar set up anywhere else in the highlands, and there are plenty of treacherous roads there (a truck became a fireball just this morning).
If they really were serious about saving lives, and being seen not to be raising revenue,then mobile cameras and radar traps would spring up in different locations all the time, not the same old "gimme" spots that are nowhere near as dangerous as other places.
I should think that saved lives and injuries would be far more cost effective than the revenue raised......
My daughter got pulled up the other day, the officer advised her she was sitting right on the speed limit.
Why?
:shrug: Did he also tell her what gear she was in?Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
Maybe it was the "gear" she was in which prompted the police officer to pull her over.:B:BQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Historically road design was based on the expected 85 percentile speed -- i.e. the speed BELOW which 85% of people were expected to travel.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Design criteria contain some measure of forgiveness for people travelling above the 85 percentile speed -- which doesn't mean that 140km/h on a 100km/h design is catered for.
More recently, in NSW at least, the trend has been to select a design speed that is 10km/h ABOVE the intended speed limit -- to provide a "margin of safety". (BTW I don't agree with this philosophy -- but this is not the forum to air my objections.)
Speed limits tend to be based on the length of a section of road, the spacing of driveways into adjoining property, the speed limit on adjacent sections, how busy the section of road is, the number and spacing of intersections, and what is a reasonable maximum speed for the distances typically travelled by Australian drivers -- there's more but those will do for now.
Just be glad you don't live in Sweden.
There their "Vision Zero" is based on a maximum speed of 70km/h on any road without a central median barrier and 30km/h in areas used by pedestrians.
On that basis it would take 8 or 9 hours to drive from Melbourne to Mildura and over 11 hours to get from Dubbo to Broken Hill.
Implementation of something similar in AUS would have a major impact on rural communities
Yeah, we were suspicious that was the reason. I think the serve she gave him would have settled him down a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrongwayfirst
We have had a "Drop 5(kph)" campaign over here in WA for a while ... it sickens me.
Alleging 5kph is a useful change in speed was someone's thought bubble, ... and then the advertising to try to promote and justify it.
As a commercial (night-time) driver for 25years, I'd rather see people looking out their windscreens than down at their speedo, regardless of their (reasonable) speed.
Rather than obsess about whether they were 1km over the limit, I'd rather they
- left more room to the next car
- observed the traffic at intersections 50m before they got there
- checked for traffic at the lights before moving, regardless of the light going green
- learnt how to read the 'body language' of other cars
- etc
There's a lot of looking and being aware that needs to be done while driving.
I think focussing on speed is a poor proxy for competent driving.
Cheers,
Paul
From a road safety point of view that is a definite - but it will not transfer half a billion dollars a year from our collective pockets to the government coffers.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcgee
Cheers
Doug
RE:There's a lot of looking and being aware that needs to be done while driving.
I agree Paul, driver attention to their surroundings is very ordinary.
It's instructive to watch a drivers eyes and head to determine how aware they are of their surroundings.
Most drivers have a sort of fixed head position with a vacant glazed look which goes even glassier if they're talking even on a hands free mobile,
For instance, about the only time most drivers use mirrors is when reversing, overtaking, or changing lanes (although disturbingly I've noticed a bit less of this lately) so mostly they haven't got a clue who or what is behind them.
When I did my driver instructors cert, for the first week we were re-taught to drive by a bloke who was a police driver instructor from the UK.
We were taught using what was called "roving eyes" and verbally describing what you were looking at
This was a constant shifting of attention/focus, switching randomly between all mirrors, left and right sides of the vehicle, close, medium and far distance ahead of the vehicles, and the vehicle dashboard to report our speed and any other vehicle parameters that might have changed.
Far distant checks, Mirrors and dash checks had to be glances, with more time spent on L/R and medium/close distance checks.
While training we also had to say what all the road signs we passed were. Special attention was to be paid to road conditions, pedestrians and bicycles etc.
We were scored on number of relevant descriptions per minute and these varied according to traffic conditions.
Initially this is very difficult to do and even harder to keep up for more than about 10 minutes let alone a couple of hours, but eventually it becomes automatic although, unless regularly practiced, like most things it fades in time . I can still do it if I concentrate, but that's the point - very few drivers are really consciously concentrating on what they're doing and drive in a semi-zombi mode and this is cause of many problems. "The reason for the accident your Honour was I just didn't see . . . . . . . ", should really be " . . .. was I driving in zombie mode"
What I want to know is if it is good enough for UK cops to use this why isn't it a mandatory part of driver training for everyone?
Indeed. As should so-called "advanced driving skills". They should be normal driving skills. The only down side of that is that P-Platers will think they are even more invincible.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
I'd like to have a dollar for every time a driver has impatiently gone around me to get ahead at speed when I have slowed down a tad about 100 metres from a currently red light. This means that the lights were green by the time I got there - I've not had to use the brakes, and used less petrol in simply (more or less) maintaining my speed (I may have slowed by 10-15 kph for a short while by merely releasing the accelerator).
The other driver is of course stationary at the lights as I cruise past, and so the cycle begins all over again......
Less petrol, less brakewear, less stress, AND more time to observe what's going on around me.
If I'm (say) 200-300 metres away from a light that is green then I usually assume that it will be red by the time I get there at my current speed. If I slow down a bit the chances are that it might be in the next phase of green upon my arrival. Therefore by slowing down for a bit I have overall increased the speed of my journey. No rocket science involved.
Boggles the mind how many people are in a hurry to stop at a red light.