Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by smee, Feb 27, 2011.
No licence = no income,
The Govt makes more money from an employed person than a person on the dole,
Shame that the Govt cant see it,
This is my post to this article (and to one individual in particular):
To Tim the Simpleton (post 36). You don't understand the issue. It's not about dangerous speeding, it's about inadvertant straying over the posted limits. In this very same paper last year a professor from MUARC is on record stating that such speeding offences aren't the problem. Rather, it is those who speed excessively. Also, I take exception to the Herald-Sun reporter who uses such language as "leadfoot" when clearly, a lead foot isn't the problem. If it was, why then aren't we killing ourselves in the thousands?
6 "hoons" a day on average... across the entire state... but if you believe the PR, these are the key danger to families. :roll:
The other issue with that report is the parroting of the 30% of fatalities involve speed, which is derived from non scientific police reports with a bias towards ticking the speed box.
When are we going to get some truth?
- - -
Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'
But another point here is exactly what our NSW rider buddies will find out.
Political parties will say one thing in opposition but when in power, the revenue generated by traffic infringments is toooo good to miss out on...
it reads like a war correspondent reporting the victory over some dreaded enemy, doesn't it ?
Pull the other one supt............my figures say that there would be a 40.8 per cent drop in serious injuries if motorists sped up by 11.5km/h. Creating b/s figures from thin air is an easy thing to do, now how do I charge the gubbermant for time wasted pulling this 40.8 percent from by poop hole?
Azn, he's right, that's what the modelling shows. Now whether the modelling is right is a whole other story.
Modelling smodelling, Ive dealt with these modellings before and its mostly garbage. Different countries shows different result as well depending on how the raw data is analysed.
Azn, that comment suggests that you know diddly squat.
Please offer suitable criticism for the Nilsson modeling that the officer is referring to.
The US government's modeling shows something entirely different. Namely, that most (85%?) road users are better at choosing the safest speed for a given situation than authorities who set arbitrary (or cynically exploitative) limits.
but it seems that 85% of the public know that already.
Not to mention that their definition of 'involved speed' isn't necessarily speeding but simply 'too fast for the conditions'. Meaning those 'speeding crashes' could have all been doing the speed limit or lower. Not sure about VIC but I remember in NSW last year ~40% of 'speeding related' crashes were travelling below the speed limit.
You'd think it would be obvious that teaching motorists the ability to self-regulate speed based on conditions is paramount, since so many crashes were below the speed limit but still 'too fast'..