Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

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.

VIC MUARC Advocates 10 km/h Reductions

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by mjt57, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. MUARC is at it again. It is advocating a 10 km/h reduction of speed limits across the board.

    Ironically, the fellow said that Britain has a better safety record than us, yet it has higher freeway limits and they don't have the crippling 3 km/h tolerance (or 1.7 mph).

    And yet again, he compares us to Sweden which is like comparing Hong Kong to say, Tintaldra, when it comes to traffic management.

    More here...


    And happy New Year, btw...
  2. He can goan get fucked
  3. grue advocates destruction of muarc and all employees
    • Like Like x 6
  4. It all makes sense to me, but why stop at 10kmh? If we set all speed limits to zero, the road toll will likely be zero as well.

    Good work MUARC, let's go for it and make Victoria the first place in the world to have a road toll of zero!
  5. MUARC is soon going to recommend chopping all trees next to roads, it seems they are responsible for a lot of crashes, speed bumps on freeways. mandatory airbags on everything 2 wheels. they are giving serious thought to making airjackets compulsory for all pedestrians. last proposal they are going to try and push through is to reduce school zone speeds to walking pace which literally means get out of the car and push it till you clear the zone.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Martin, absolutely spot on mate! England also has better driver training and licensing, FILTERING and a better more considerate driver culture. Hellooooo TAC, anyone listening??

    The prof is a bonehead. The reason that the toll isn't making the great stride it once did is that the incessant focus on speed isn't focussing on the next root cause, driver skill. I have a graph around here some place showing a clearly demonstrating declining returns from the last 20 years incessant focus on speed.

    BAC and seat belts had the biggest impacts. Easy to see.

    New and better cars and better medical advances has been helping things at an inherent level. That's helping a general decline in numbers.

    The focus on speed has just been chipping away at the edges however that's sacrilegious to say. There's no denying that slowing people down has taken crash energies down... but legal speeds are still dying speeds... if this MUARC knob had his way, we'd be going everywhere at 30km/h.
  7. The fuggers at MUARC are so far up their own collective ar$es, this would probably be their ultimate goal....

    Why can't they get it through their tiny fuggin brains,
    machines occasionally break,
    humans make mistakes,
    sometimes, much as you try to avoid it, $hit happens that no ar$sehole directly caused.....

    Useless stuffed shirt oxygen thieves MUARC all are...

    motorcycling is a low risk, high consequence activity......live with it, or fugg off and leave the rest of us be....

    rant over....

    100% behind Smee on this one..

    BTW....Happy New Year one and all...
  8. I dont think that will work either, in-fact the whole "Vision Zero" mantra is flawed as people will still die in that time of natural causes; heart attack, stroke, epileptic fit.. zero is unachievable..
  9. There's the rub, that's why vision zero isn't focussed on road users, but making the road system tolerant to user's mistakes. This is why they are moving to intelligent systems where cars and vehicles respond to users mistakes, respond to each other, are designed to actively avoid users mistakes and why the physical roads are being redesigned to be crash tolerant so that you don't die when you really make a mess of things.

    It's too hard to make a better road user, so make the roads idiot proof.
  10. ^ So that means MUARC is trying to make the roads MUARC-proof... :cheeky:
  11. I also think something sinister is at play.. The TAC/Vicroads/VicPol have all removed the % of fatalaties due to speed stat from there websites. In fact so cleansed is the statistic, that the two places I can find it is;

    A general comment in the Auditor Generals report into speed cameras which mentions "about a third of road casualties". http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20110831-Road-Safety-Cameras/20110831-Road-Safety-Cameras.html

    And MUARC's own study which puts excessive speed at an even lower number (2%)! and in fact put driver inattention as the highest driver fault in crashes (14.1%).

    So what this F&cktard is suggesting is that a 10km/h across the board reduction will abolish speed as a cause of road casualty overnight.. Given that most speed limits have already been reduced by 10-30km/h already over the last 10 years with no significant death rate reduction, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that this over simplistic and tired approach is not going to work at all..

    If they want to reduce casualties (which I dont believe is required at all) they need to focus on the real issues; Driver inatention, red light running, fatigue, drink driving.

    But all this asside lets face the fact that we have reached the point of deminishing returns with road safety. The fact is that we are all many times more likely to die of:

    Heart Disease 162.9 per 100,000
    Stroke 71.6 per 100,000
    Dementia 19.3 per 100,000


    Road death is a mere 7.7 per 100,000


    With that in mind, what should we really be spending money on if we want to save lives? When put into perspective, the road is one of the safest places to be!

    To add perspective 260 people a year in Australia are victims of homocide (http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx), imagine if all the road cops where out there actually catching criminals??
  12. A subject close to my heart.

    I have long said that distractions are the largest killer on the roads. We get so easily distracted for a number of reasons but on the highway the drive is so damned boring the mind is constantly looking for something else to do.

    I, and many mates, can do 1,000km a day on interesting roads with no fatigue or other issues. However 300km on a freeway is fatiguing for all sorts of reasons. Making them more "crash tolerant" just makes them worse for me due to the lack of stimulation.

    If it was up to me, I would ban mobile phone use, including hands free, from any moving vehicle. Years ago I determined that most of the phone conversations I had required too much hard thought to be safe in city traffic.
  13. And yet we have idiots on these forums and others STILL participating with them in heir surveys etc.
    When are you fucktards gonna learn???? ZERO cooperation with the words "no way are we going to help you since all you do is recommend idiotic policies fuck you all you academic fucktards.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. You can't have a survey if everyone tells you "suck my dick"!
    • Like Like x 2
  15. I was in England and Holland a few years ago. Both have low speed limits in towns but these are old towns with narrow streets not designed for cars. England at least still has reasonable motorway speeds.
  16. I second the motion. Mr chairman, could we see a show of hands?
  17. i just got back form England.
    their speed limits on average, non-residential roads (such as dual carriageways, not highways/motorways) are higher than ours(most are 70 MPH where ours would be 80KMH) and it's illegal for them not to tell you where the speed cameras are.

    why, oh why, can we not do that here in VIC if it's so good for the road toll?
  18. Make sure to point out to all the sanctimonious newspaper commenter that love to be the speed limit abiding citizens that they will be up for a nice fine.

    The hoon labeller has become the hoon labelled?
  19. notice that they don't mention the number of road users (increase or decrease). This year Ive been out to about 10 fatalities of those I can only think of 1 that I can say with any certainty that could be attributed to speed the rest were from what I could figure out were due to either booze or inattention (read mobile phones)
  20. It may seem that MUARC is concentrating its efforts on a more minor cause. However, what has become apparent is that they've thrown in the towel regarding the major causes, and they're trying to minimise the energy of impact WHEN (not if) someone has an accident. They're not trying to reduce the accident rate. They're trying to reduce the death rate: there's a subtle but important difference. They should be trying to reduce the death rate by reducing the accident rate. That would be far more useful to people than making it take longer to go from A to B.