Candleflame
Active Member
thats nonsense because the government is very happy to impose a lot of restrictions on drivers but when it really matters i.e. shitty behaviour, unsafe vehicles, unsafe driving they just dont care.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model 3 - P Plate Prohibited Vehicle
- Thread starter rioli33
- Start date
- Status
thats nonsense because the government is very happy to impose a lot of restrictions on drivers but when it really matters i.e. shitty behaviour, unsafe vehicles, unsafe driving they just dont care.
rgc1990
5IL3NT
One of the best things I ever did when I was learning to drive was a ‘school-based’ program, where we attended an advanced driving school. We gained additional hours for our learner licence compared to ‘normal’ driving hours, and went through emergency braking and slalom type things in a handful of different vehicles.
Theory and practical if I recall. It was a number of years ago.
raynewman
Active Member
One thing both Vostok and meloccom have ignored here is the Nanny state's preoccupation with speed/performance and total ignorance of training/vehicle safety. In this example a Tesla (any model) is a far safer option that a Ford/GM (any model). I would much rather my soon to be licensed 16 year old drive a Tesla than any Ford/GM. The speed/performance is a very large red herring.
And do you have any formal qualifications or evidence base in these matters to draw such a conclusion?
And you ignore that while a Tesla might be safer to drive for the occupant in the event of a high speed crash, what about the collateral damage? A teenager behaving irresponsibly in a Tesla is a huge danger to the safety of others. That is why society has a responsibility to impose rules that reduce such risks - in this case by making them prohibited vehicles to certain classes of drivers.
Too often people just think about the risk to themselves, and falsely believe they are the only ones affected therefore should have complete freedom to judge whether or not to take that risk without government interference, and totally ignore the negative impact to others that their actions might have.
As usual the true answer lies somewhere in the middle. The guy I talked to was a public servant and understood what is politically possible. A law that restricts young drivers to lower performance vehicles is much easier to pass than a wholesale change to driver licensing. Do I think that a drivers license should be more like the German process, yes I do, but I also recognise that that is politically a difficult thing to do and could come with unintended consequences such as lower income people being forced to drive unlicensed as they simply can’t afford to obtain a license due to cost.
You roll in railing against "the Nanny state" but you say you're not looking for a political argument? Riiiiiight.
EcoCloudIT
Active Member
If one considers the real cost I think government funded advanced training would cover off the unintended consequence mentioned above….
Maximillan
Member
It's been done before in NSW, it just requires the political will to take it further. The current 120 hour log book has a driver training course that gives the attendee 20 (?) hours for the completing the course.
Some time in the early 1990s, the Minister for Roads (and Deputy Premier) Wal Murray who was well aware of the road statistics (44x more likely to die on NSW roads on a motorbike than in a car) was shocked at how easy it was for his son-in-law to get his motorbike license. So he got the RTA at the time to change things and implement a hands-on Rider Training Program.
I did the rider course as a young bloke, learnt a ton, and it made me a better driver.
Candleflame
Active Member
indeed. its not fine for the model S to travel at 130km/h on the prestine M1, but its fine for uncle henrys rusty ute with a taped on sideview mirror and bald tires to travel at 110km/h while hes reading the paper and sitting in the overtaking lane.
EcoCloudIT
Active Member
Yep, it was called Stay Up Right wasn't it? Or at least I think it was in the 80's when I grew up in Canberra and had to complete the course....
Maximillan
Member
Um, no, that would not be fine. If that was observed by NSW police, the vehicle would be pulled over, the driver fined for sitting in the overtaking lane, fined for having bald tires, given a defect notice for the taped-on mirror, fined for negligent driving by reading the paper, and depending on how bad the rust is, the vehicle could be deemed unroadworthy and taken off the road.
A Model S traveling at 130 km/h on the M1 is also breaking the law and presenting a danger to others. For a start, the stopping distance at 130 km/h is 32 metres more than it is at 110 km/h. That 32 metres could be the difference between life and death for another road user. The kinetic energy at 130 km/h is also 40% higher than it is at 110 km/h - which is more energy to dissipate in the event of a crash, creating more damage to the vehicle and occupants the Model S and whatever it crashes into.
EcoCloudIT
Active Member
If speed if the main killer, why are other countries that have no speed limits on some of their roads having less accidents?
I guess they would be things like:
- Better driver training
- Better attitude (driving to ones skill level, knowing the car/cars stopping ability, not hogging the over taking lane etc.)
- Better cars as a minimum standard on the road
We need to get off of the speed kills and address the whole issue of why accidents happen and really focus on educating the population and giving them the best education (technical and actual hands on training) that we possible can.
Indeed our laws of 100/110km/hr has been around for more than 50 years, cars 50 years ago had no where near the same stopping ability of newer cars today....a lot of "things" need to be re-looked at, however not before more Advanced Driving training that learners should be put through is enforced. I for one have no issues with my tax dollars going towards subsidising such programs.
These sources disagree with you. The conclusion of the first two is that speed is the #1 contributor towards road fatalities in Australia. The third one explains why speed is such a risk factor. If you have other sources that conclude something different for this country, then please share them.
Speeding | Transport for NSW
Speeding is the single biggest killer on NSW roads, contributing to about 40% of fatalities each year.
Reducing speed, improving safety: Case Study | NHMRC
Through the Road Accident Research Unit (RARU) at The University of Adelaide – now the Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR) – NHMRC-funded research led to reductions to speed limits and other innovations that have made important contributions to road safety in Australia. A landscape...
Assuming that is true, it is likely to be due to other factors, such as having a higher proportion of divided carraigeways than we do. Road infrastructure design can make a big difference to the likelihood of fatalities. Also, has the data been properly normalised for distance travelled and other variables in order to compare it to here? That‘s why I leave it to the road safety and accident research experts to analyse the data and draw their conclusions. I am not the expert in this area, they are.
No need to apologise. I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. If I post stuff, it should be challenged and the onus is on me to substantiate it. If I am wrong, then I have learned something.
Candleflame
Active Member
the speed box always gets ticked during every analysis and is usually not the reason for the crash.
Australia needs to get a grip on itself, if its really about safety then all speed limits should be reduced to 50-60km/h including on the motorway.
Even countries which do have low limits i.e. UK (110kmh) people often drive much faster. And in Germany we drive for the most part as fast as we want too. Without any issues. And tbh driving here as a european I can see that the driving standard is appalling and there are many things which should be adressed before "speeding" is to blame for accidents. And also driving "at speed" is not the same as hooning and swerving, undertaking etc which many australians love to do while traveling over the limit. Speed is not the reason people get into accidents. That any speed above 10kmh will make an accident worse is obvious. And noone here thinks its appropriate to drive 140 in a country two lane road.
Australia needs to get a grip on itself, if its really about safety then all speed limits should be reduced to 50-60km/h including on the motorway.
Even countries which do have low limits i.e. UK (110kmh) people often drive much faster. And in Germany we drive for the most part as fast as we want too. Without any issues. And tbh driving here as a european I can see that the driving standard is appalling and there are many things which should be adressed before "speeding" is to blame for accidents. And also driving "at speed" is not the same as hooning and swerving, undertaking etc which many australians love to do while traveling over the limit. Speed is not the reason people get into accidents. That any speed above 10kmh will make an accident worse is obvious. And noone here thinks its appropriate to drive 140 in a country two lane road.
Any evidence for this assertion? I trust road safety researchers who have professional credentials in this field and actually spend months and years looking at the data, gathering international and local evidence, and analysing it properly.
If an amateur in your field of expertise came along and told you that your expert conclusions are wrong, when you have formal qualifications and experience in that field and they don’t, what would your response be?
Expert opinions, professional advice, research, best health advice are all commonly used phrases relayed by the government. Depending on who is funding the research and what outcome is needed to be achieved, then you will always be able to find research data to support your objectives.
For example, when living in Holland many years ago, the data showed that freeway speed should be increased from 110km/h to 130km/h due to many factors including driver focus increased. So it was increased. Yet another politician comes into power and back in 2019 he needed the daytime speed limit cut to 110km/h due to reducing carbon emissions.
To type away asking for evidence or telling someone that your ’expert‘ sources disagree is quite arrogant and naive. There are many factors involved in accidents but not just speeding. Other factors offered such as environment, education and training are all important. If it was just speeding being number 1, then most other countries would have significantly higher fatal accidents, especially some European countries with higher/unlimited speed limits than Australia. Does the Australian government, think they are the poster child for the least fatal collisions in country which is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world?
That is not actually particularly relevant, since almost all Australians live and drive in a fairly narrow coastal strip of cities which is populated at a far higher density.
- Status
Similar threads
