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.

N/A | National Reduce speed limit at Intersections - draft proposal.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. http://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/national_road_safety_strategy/index.aspx


    Don't sit on your hands. Submit a response!

    One of the key proposals to reduce fatalities at intersections is to put local reduced speed limits at intersections. It's right there on page 21. This is the beige cardigan brigade going mad.

    There's nary a mention of improving the competence of road users! Instead, whenever safer people (one of the key cornerstones) is discussed, it's all about behaviour change and greater compliance with the laws! This strategy is flawed!

    Motorcycles don't rate much of a mention, but many of the strategies can't include motorcycles. Think about that for a minute.

    This draft strategy is all about idiot proofing the road system and about decreasing fatalities and injuries as a result of minimising the consequences of a collision, not the likelihood. It is focussed on humans making mistakes, not on poorly competent road users making poor choices which lead to collisions. The key plank is better roads. The next key plank is increased speed enforcement and lower speed limits. Think about that!

    <insert height kills analogy here>

    Have a say. Talk about it to your friends. Talk about it to your families. This strategy will curtail how everyone users their road vehicle - even the most beige of the beige will have their driving ultimately impacted... local reduction at intersections for feck's sake!

  2. Imagine if CASA thought the same as these people....

    (I reckon Knickers knows where I'm coming from)
  3. I live next to a 4 way intersection, 50 zone. There are accidents every week because people don't give way and subsequently cannot react fast enough. Residents to the area know the intersection and luckily I have avoided accident so far.

    Sorry but I would welcome a 30 zone 50m either side and through the intersection.
  4. So the root cause is poor driving skill... yet the solution is a lower speed limit?
  5. You're a man of many talents Rob and one of them is to make very good sense.
    Well done mate.
  6. So how will reducing the speed limit to 30 prevent retards who fail to grasp the simple concept of giving way?
  7. i'm inclined to suggest that they know people don't adhere to limits now, so they won't exactly do so with lower limits, therefore further building on the revenue raised by cameras
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Having to continually reduce speed limits is all the proof that's needed that people who can't drive with the one's we've got should be removed from the roads.

    Making people slower so their crashes wont hurt them is a fool's paradise. Making people slower so their crashes wont hurt us is a fool's paradise.

    Make it so they don't crash as often and everbody wins.

    Have you considered moving?

    Seriously, are you advocating the dropping of speed limits at ALL intersections because of ONE? The bureaucrats must love their fanboys.

    Do you understand the concept of the concertina (or rubber band) effect? That's when the risk of being rear ended is at it's highest. And that's precisely what the proposal will create more of. You don't think we have enough stupid yo-yoing speed limits to contend with and we should have some more? The people who will be placed at the highest risk of this rubbish will be the motorcycle riders.

    So why replace one problem with another? Of course you could always drop the speed limits in between the traffic lights to match those coming into them, and I expect that's what will happen eventually. Rather than admit a decision was a stupid mistake and didn't achieve the desired outcome, just continue on to make more mistakes until the original one is adequately covered up.

    Yeah I think you're right to be sorry.

  9. The control state is achieved through social engineering - not in one fouls stinking swoop to eradicate rights and liberties but rather one small change after another - the same as you would eat an elephant - one bite at a time

  10. That's the way it's done eh?

    ...and why does it work? Because they know they can sneak it past the ones who aren't paying attention.

    They bank on at least someone agreeing with them along the way, you can piss off some of the people some of the time......but you can't upset all the people all the time.
  11. Very true. Most people lack the intelligence/motivation to question what they see on TV, so the right ad campaign can sell almost anything (as proven by the overpriced crap people will buy from an infomercial). And the TAC has been using some very effective advertising agencies of late.

    Ironic though that it wasn't that long ago they were trying to convince us that merely doing 5kph under the limit would solve everything, now they seem to be admitting that some drivers can't be trusted in intersections at anything faster than a brisk jog. The way they're going it won't be long before the cheapest and fastest means of transport will be a horse. :roll:
  12. #12 Smokae, Jan 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2013
    What? You think people will magically drive better, how? State funded driving school for full-license drivers? It would be political suicide to tell full licensed drivers they are not perfect on the road.

    (Even if you only told the women).

    I do now, but, I would want to see proof that it would result in an increase in accidents, or severity, versus the perceived benefit - if people obey the speed limit, the seriousness of the accidents in these intersections will be reduced.

    You cannot deny that an accident at a lower speed will be less serious versus the same circumstances to the accident at a higher speed. Please don't attempt to 'prove me wrong' by an apples-oranges comparison, it will just see me making a post likely to result in vacation.

    It won't change a thing, but, I can see people having more time to stop their vehicle, lower speed and less serious accidents, and ultimately, fewer physical collisions. It won't logically result in fewer people running through the intersection, but there will be benefits.

    There will be benefits as I outlined. I don't deny that a lower speed limit will improve driving ability, but the Government knows they cannot afford, financially or politically, to re-train and re-educate drivers, and in some cases, just take their license away - from tens, of thousands, of people.

    The only solution to the problem you identify is to flat out cancel licenses. Now how do you propose to deal with these people?
  13. #13 TheForgotten, Jan 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2013
    that's not the only solution, nowhere near the only solution.
    they need to be more active in finding the solution, and more forceful in implementing it.
    as many have said many times, lower the risk of a crash rather than the risk of an injury in the crash that will undoubtedly occur
  14. #14 robsalvv, Jan 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    Smokae, the strategy is about a host of proposals, essentially improve roads, lower the speed limits, enforce the feck out if them. Your argument abt collision energy is being applied across THE WHOLE ROAD SYSTEM. Well done, your brain wash cycle is complete.

    I'd rather take 10000 idiots off the road than be treated like an idiot that needs to be protected from myself.

    By the way, motorbikes don't belong in vision zero safe road philosophy... Your acceptance of treating all road users as idiots, rather than removing the idiots, has helped remove bikes from the road. Thanks for that.

    - - -
  15. So, retarded people exist on our roads. Literally ****ing retarded so that they go through red lights, fail to give way and plain don't drive responsibly.

    But in terms of the offences they are committing, they are minor, small time offenders. If they became public enemy number 1, like 'hoons' doing in excess of 40 above the limit, so that they had their license taken away - BUT LATER RETURNED! - it would be political suicide.

  16. Why is it always talk of punishment?

    What about rewards for people who invest in top-notch driver/rider training?

    Discounts on insurance or CTP?
  17. #17 robsalvv, Jan 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    Smokae, you've fallen for the hoon propaganda too. Sigh.

    Generally incompetent drivers & drivers making mistakes make up the bulk of the road toll.

    The government is aiming to slow down the whole populace rather than take the genuinely incompetent off the road... Wait till you see the ad campaign to make that fly.

    Retraining & retesting is the key, not dumbing down the roads.

    - - -

    Of course it is.

    If you think the masses will accept enforced slowing down, then why the heck would they not accept 5 yrly 10 yrly retesting?

    - - -
  18. Rob, do you want to insult me and be on my bad side, or do you want to apologise & retract that rubbish?

    Any reasonable person knows that removing persons from the road either permanently or for the purpose of retraining upon committing what is treated, in print and ingrained in the minds of voters, is political suicide.

    It will also cost too much money. Money that Australia does not have and the taxpayer has an inability to provide.

    You are welcome to present an alternative solution for this situation that makes political, financial and logical sense.

    All I've seen from you so far is emotional talk and "I feel" statements.

    A) When? during work hours? Who will pay for missing employees?
    8) Who will pay for the course?
    C) How will it net everyone? We are busy people, we won't take holiday time to do a road test
    D) How do you think you will convince people to take these tests despite thinking of themselves as awesome drivers?
    E) Interesting time period you suggested. Just enough time to lose an election and for another party to campaign for a full year that they will remove the requirement. GG, you just LOST THE ELECTION :)
  19. You're on my ****ing nerves now Rob.

    You have failed to grasp the enormity of the issue here...there are so many of these people and it is often so difficult to catch them 'before the fact' that you need to target everyone with your policy suggestion. Don't you realise that you too are suggesting everyone be treated like idiots?
    That's twice you've lost the election.
  20. #20 robsalvv, Jan 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    Smokae, you accept the notion of lower limits is the answer. You raised the spectre of hoons. You believe only 'tards crash... You are pretty comprehensively indicating your state of being brainwashed by the institutionalised road safety machine.

    Are you trying to tell us that if it were law to retest & retrain if required, every 5 or 10 yrs for the benefit of road safety, no one could do it or could afford it? & your evidence is??

    Here is something for you to
    Ponder: NSW has a YEARLY RWC requirement. People seem to make the time for that. There's some evidence for you that the time will be made.

    The Ad campaign for improving the quality of drivers on the road would be a walk in the park compared to dropping the Hume to 90kmh.

    YOU ARE the one accepting lower limits as the answer. This is one plank of a group of strategies intending to lower the toll... YOU are accepting bikes being removed from the road system by default. Own your statements mate.

    Here's something else for you to ponder. The draft directly compares Oz to four other countries with better fatality rates... And wants to have a better fatality rate. Two if those countries have higher maximum speed limits and ALL four have very strict & tough licensing requirements.

    Helllooo McFly?!? The logical disconnect is astounding!! The ATC want to achieve a better fatality rate without improving the quality of drivers. They only want to improve the quality of driver compliance to the new & more restrictive laws. This blunt unsophisticated bureaucratic simpleton stuff... And you are eating it up.

    I absolutely and utterly disagree with your contention that retesting is political suicide. UTTERLY.

    - - -