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] Greens propose 30 km/h speed limits.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by rc36, Nov 25, 2010.

  1. Lovely. Won't be voting for them.
  2. greens are who i've generally voted for. not this time!
  3. No, just a desire to return to the stone age.
  4. Honestly, what is it with victoria?
  5. Although many on here bucket Neil Mitchell he tore strips off the Greens rep on 3AW a few minutes ago with this loony proposal.
  6. I propose they all wash their mouths out with buckshot.
  7. well said bro
  8. Doesn't surprise me, they also proposed toilet day in parliament. Its kinda good to see the greens getting a bit of power, cause now the general population are seeing what a bunch of raving loons they are.
  9. They are not necessarily overly sharp. They have an advertising campaign going "this time I'm voting Green". In other words it's meant to show that normal people who haven't voted for them before are changing their vote.

    Now they are doing something innovative - they have people in peak hour standing next to every second tree (no, they aren't actually hugging them) down Royal Parade holding signs up to the traffic reading "This time I'm voting Green".

    Unfortunately for them judging by their appearance the people holding the signs would certainly have voted Green last time, and the time before and the time before... :)

    For this to be effective (and it could be very effective if done properly) they should have had a mixture of ages - middle aged women, assorted ethnicities, older blokes in suits etc who weren't obviously Greens voters (the bicycles next to each of the poster holders is also a bit of a giveaway - and given they are specifically aiming at cars and their occupants, not necessarily the best move).
  10. As for the actual proposal, it's completely arse-about. As the RACV guy said, there's already dubious compliance with 40kph speed limits at the moment. I think 40kph is a good speed limit for places such as outside schools, very busy shopping strips etc. If people are still getting hit and injured by vehicles, you have to look at the other factors.

    Eventually you have to move away from damage mitigation, and focus on the cause of these things - pedestrians not paying enough attention for example? I'd be interested to see a pedestrian receive some kind of infringement notice for jaywalking if they get hit...
  11. Uh oh... time to drag out the height kills thing.... http://www.abd.org.uk/ht-kills.htm

    The traffic engineer was quite pleased with himself, he had finally managed to stop the local bus drivers trying to take their double deckers under the low bridge under the railway, so Councillor Prescott might finally concede that he knew what he was doing. But as he entered Prescott's office he saw that the councillor was in an ominously thoughtful mood.

    'I see we've had a reduction in accidents in Railway Terrace' said Mr Prescott, 'Yes' said the engineer, anxious to demonstrate his success, 'You see I did a survey and found that the maximum safe height under the bridge was 12'2", so I arranged for some warning signs to stop anyone taking a vehicle more than 12' high...'

    But the Councillor had already lost interest. 'I've been studying some statistics' said the Councillor (the engineer winced, Councillor Prescott's grasp of mathematics was notoriously shaky) 'and it seems that when those new warning signs went up the average height of vehicles using Railway Terrace fell by 9 inches', 'Well, yes..' replied the engineer, 'and accidents dropped by 18%' continued the Councillor triumphantly'. The traffic engineer tried to figure out where this was leading, 'Do you realise what this means? Every inch of average height reduction leads to a 2% reduction in accidents! All we have to do is alter the warning signs to read 11' and accidents will drop by another 24%!'

    His head spinning, the traffic engineer tried to reason with the Councillor, 'but if a 12 foot vehicle can get through perfectly safely, what is the point in imposing extra restrictions?' Councillor Prescott was having none of this, 'you don't seem to understand, Height Kills, if every inch of height reduction causes a 2% drop in accidents, surely we must have a height limit reduction program, let's speak to the bus company and see if they can lower the single deckers somehow.'

    The traffic engineer thought quickly, there was no point in trying to explain the facts, Councillor Prescott always regarded knowledge of road traffic and accident causation a fatal disqualification for making decisions on the subject, but there was a possible way to turn the situation to advantage. 'There is another low bridge, under the disused railway in Beeching Close, where lorries do sometimes get stuck, but I haven't had the funds to tackle the problem before, I suggest that should be the first priority for the height reduction program'. Councillor Prescott agreed and the traffic engineer set off for Beeching Close with measuring rod in hand.

    At first it wasn't clear why there was a problem at this particular bridge, there was already a height restriction of 7 feet, so why on earth were drivers ignoring it? After an examination of the bridge the reason became clear, the maximum safe height was over 14 feet. On receiving a recommendation that the 7 foot height limit was unrealistic and should be raised, Councillor Prescott was apoplectic, 'lorries are getting stuck because they are too high' he yelled, 'surely the limit needs to be lowered'. The engineer tried to point out that it was precisely because the limit was obviously ludicrous that it was being ignored, and that raising the limit would increase compliance, but the Councillor did not understand. 'In Railway Terrace, reducing the height reduced accidents, therefore Height Kills' he argued, 'surely raising the limit in Beeching Close will increase average heights, therefore increase accidents,' 'But it isn't the average height that matters' the engineer tried to point out, 'a 14 foot limit will be taken seriously and will reduce instances of excessive height, therefore reduce accidents, whether the average goes up or down is totally beside the point'. 'But Height Kills' bellowed the Councillor, 'no it doesn't' the engineer bellowed back, of course he should have said 'not necessarily' but this is not an easy thing to bellow.

    'How can you say height didn't cause this?' Councillor Prescott produced a press photo of the mangled remains of a double decker wedged under the Railway Terrace bridge and dropped it on the desk with the air of one producing the ace of trumps. 'The point was that the height was excessive for the situation, it is excessive height that causes the problem, not height itself' the engineer protested, but the Councillor wasn't listening, 'I've already decided to introduce a height reduction program, reducing all existing height limits by a foot, if this succeeds in reducing heights, I'll introduce a host of new height limits, if it doesn't I'll reduce the limits further until it does....'

    The engineer stopped listening; once Councillor Prescott had made up his mind, there was no point in giving him the facts.
  12. Please don't bring logic into the equations of road laws - incidents (hate calling incidents with the term "accidents" when there is a cause that made it happen and not beyond everyone's control which is then "an accident")

  13. Absolutely!!
    Don't you know the VIC authorities are the only ones in the world that know why all fatalities/injuries happen and the rest of us have no logic...


    A road user overtakes when there's no clear view of the upcoming road and has an incident with an oncoming car... IT WAS SPEED the main contributing factor and not the dumb arse desicion to overtake.

    A drunk road user has a crash while well over the limit.... Again IT WAS SPEED as the main contributing factor and not that road user was blind drunk.

    A road user with a vehicle with tyres worn down to final belt has a blowout and runs off the road... IT WAS SPEED as the main contrubuting factor and not that the dick was in control of a dangerous piece of junk.

    See, authorities in charge know more than everyone else.... ](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)

    Oh and another thing, why do I get the feeling that a good no of those Monash Uni research people would have a great green component??

    Sorry guys, while there's so much money to be made, it'll take someone with plenty of guts to change things down here...
  14. in the week before an election the candidates and parties will say ANYTHING just to get your attention and maybe scrape another vote or two. I would take anything quoted this week with a very large pinch of salt
  15. The range for average IQ is 90-110.

    Yeah, it was speed... not enough of it. If he'd been going faster, he might've made it past in time...

  16. Greens arranged a tour by a European safety bureaucrat earlier this year who lectured on this topic. It kinda looks like they have picked up her policies in their entirety.
    They included universal 30 urban limits, universal 60kmh rural limits, and also curfews and bans on motorised transport in many local neighbourhoods.

    It's one of those things where they know they will not actually achieve government (yet), so they can take an extreme position without worrying about how it will be implemented. Just like Greg Barber on Hazelwood.

    I can see I'll have to be very creative in the voting booth on Saturday...
  17. 85-115 actually. Anything within one standard deviation (±15 in this case) is pretty much average. It's been a while since I got my psych degree but I seem to recall it being something like 66-68% of a given population should be in that range (without getting into how ridiculous IQ tests are in the first place).
  18. I once did that silly Australia National IQ Test on tv, some 8-9yrs ago.
    After scoring 152 (whatever) it makes you really wonder how accurate each and every IQ test is. So I agree with grue - IQ tests are ridiculous, inaccurate and only a rough guide as to an individual's composition.
  19. They're also hellaciously biased and depend on a lot of external factors. As mentioned above, my educational background is in psychology (which I'm clearly putting to good use, working in the film industry…), and I remember one prof saying "if I ever catch any of you taking IQ tests seriously, I will hunt you down. You are safe nowhere" :rofl: