Speed Limit Enforcement
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
Speed does not equal death, lack of driving skill equals death. Look at Germany, fastest roads in the world, one of the lowest death rates. Why? Best roads, very strict TUF(MOT) and hard driving test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
I agree with your sentiments somewhat, but I do rather agree with the idea of enforcing speed limits. Surely, if we are to have speed limits (for whatever reason) they are all but pointless unless the chances of being caught are high enough that people start obeying them. If the polos believe that enforcing speed limits would genuinely save lives, then why not do it - if the penalty and chances of being caught were high enough then people generally wouldn't speed. The cost of the experiment may be very high - so trying it somewhere small like NI is a good idea - see if the road toll is significantly reduced once it's been in place for a while. personally I like the idea of enforcing a law that makes all drivers sit at the front of the car, in a seat suspended probably over the bonnet, surrounded by spikes and broken glass - none of this girly seat-belt air-bag nonsense. Boy, wyuld you drive carefully if the results of a small bingle were being impaled !
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
Why have you used pseudo title case throughout your post? Is there a hidden message when I combine all the inappropriate capitals? I do love puzzles.
Bram van Kampen wrote:
We will Catch and Do you
I hope they're hot (and female).
Bram van Kampen wrote:
over the speed limit by as much as 5%
I went 27 in a 25 zone on my driving test. The test giver noted that and I said "I thought there was a buffer." She did not seem pleased (I passed with the bare minimum required to pass).
-
I agree with your sentiments somewhat, but I do rather agree with the idea of enforcing speed limits. Surely, if we are to have speed limits (for whatever reason) they are all but pointless unless the chances of being caught are high enough that people start obeying them. If the polos believe that enforcing speed limits would genuinely save lives, then why not do it - if the penalty and chances of being caught were high enough then people generally wouldn't speed. The cost of the experiment may be very high - so trying it somewhere small like NI is a good idea - see if the road toll is significantly reduced once it's been in place for a while. personally I like the idea of enforcing a law that makes all drivers sit at the front of the car, in a seat suspended probably over the bonnet, surrounded by spikes and broken glass - none of this girly seat-belt air-bag nonsense. Boy, wyuld you drive carefully if the results of a small bingle were being impaled !
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
Agreed - personally I think it's too easy to get a license. When you are driving, you are controlling a solid half-tonne plus lump of steel on wheels ranging speeds between (average in Aus) 60km/h and 100km/h. That sounds really dangerous to me, and that's because it is. To be perfectly honest, I should NOT have been allowed a license when I did get mine. I'm much more aware now after a few accidents and about 5 years experience, but really, what if my first accident, instead of a prang, had caused serious death or injury? How much training does it take to become a commercial airline pilot, and yet any hobo off the street can walk in and become a bus driver - as long as you have a car license and take their like week long course on bus driving. That's several tonnes of steel with up to 40 or 50 people on board hurtling through major cities at 60km/h. Sound dangerous? That's because it is. I drove a 100km from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast last weekend in the middle of the night. There was no-one on the road but me, and I did 140km/h most of the way. Admittedly if there'd been a kangaroo jump out in front of me I'd've been stuffed, but I'd've been just as stuffed if I'd been doing 100km/h. It's "near misses" that are the problem, not accidents. Start looking at what's involved in "near misses" - in my experience it's an idiot driver and a good driver. The problem is the "near miss" doesn't teach the idiot driver anything, they go "whoa, that was close" and just keep on keeping on... that is, until the "near miss" becomes "too near". Phew... glad I got that off my chest :) happy and safe driving - Easter's coming up, don't become one of the news highlights...
-
Agreed - personally I think it's too easy to get a license. When you are driving, you are controlling a solid half-tonne plus lump of steel on wheels ranging speeds between (average in Aus) 60km/h and 100km/h. That sounds really dangerous to me, and that's because it is. To be perfectly honest, I should NOT have been allowed a license when I did get mine. I'm much more aware now after a few accidents and about 5 years experience, but really, what if my first accident, instead of a prang, had caused serious death or injury? How much training does it take to become a commercial airline pilot, and yet any hobo off the street can walk in and become a bus driver - as long as you have a car license and take their like week long course on bus driving. That's several tonnes of steel with up to 40 or 50 people on board hurtling through major cities at 60km/h. Sound dangerous? That's because it is. I drove a 100km from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast last weekend in the middle of the night. There was no-one on the road but me, and I did 140km/h most of the way. Admittedly if there'd been a kangaroo jump out in front of me I'd've been stuffed, but I'd've been just as stuffed if I'd been doing 100km/h. It's "near misses" that are the problem, not accidents. Start looking at what's involved in "near misses" - in my experience it's an idiot driver and a good driver. The problem is the "near miss" doesn't teach the idiot driver anything, they go "whoa, that was close" and just keep on keeping on... that is, until the "near miss" becomes "too near". Phew... glad I got that off my chest :) happy and safe driving - Easter's coming up, don't become one of the news highlights...
Well, Read my posting again later, You realy missed the Point! :) Bram.
Bram van Kampen
-
Why have you used pseudo title case throughout your post? Is there a hidden message when I combine all the inappropriate capitals? I do love puzzles.
Bram van Kampen wrote:
We will Catch and Do you
I hope they're hot (and female).
Bram van Kampen wrote:
over the speed limit by as much as 5%
I went 27 in a 25 zone on my driving test. The test giver noted that and I said "I thought there was a buffer." She did not seem pleased (I passed with the bare minimum required to pass).
Why have you used pseudo title case throughout your post? Is there a hidden message when I combine all the inappropriate capitals? I do love puzzles. Never Heard of it, So, Thanks,# Bram.
Bram van Kampen
-
I agree with your sentiments somewhat, but I do rather agree with the idea of enforcing speed limits. Surely, if we are to have speed limits (for whatever reason) they are all but pointless unless the chances of being caught are high enough that people start obeying them. If the polos believe that enforcing speed limits would genuinely save lives, then why not do it - if the penalty and chances of being caught were high enough then people generally wouldn't speed. The cost of the experiment may be very high - so trying it somewhere small like NI is a good idea - see if the road toll is significantly reduced once it's been in place for a while. personally I like the idea of enforcing a law that makes all drivers sit at the front of the car, in a seat suspended probably over the bonnet, surrounded by spikes and broken glass - none of this girly seat-belt air-bag nonsense. Boy, wyuld you drive carefully if the results of a small bingle were being impaled !
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Well, The real issue is that of Tolerances in measurement. How can you enforce a Zero Tolerance of a Speed Limit, if by law your Speedometer has to be within 10%, and the Police has equipment that has to be 'Accurate' within 5% There is No such thing as Absolute Truth, Masurement,Value. The Other issue is, We try to Drive down Road Deaths and Injuries. Each extra measure costs economically. The Actions of Society will cause victims to die. I think there is sufficient Health and Safety. Bram :)
Bram van Kampen
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
Try driving in Melbourne. They will pip you for 1kmh above the limit. And the road toll? Increasing except for the last 2 years, and the last I heard, driving miles have decreased markedly due to the high fuel prices, so you'd hope the toll went down. We just call it a user-pays tax and get on with it.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Well, Read my posting again later, You realy missed the Point! :) Bram.
Bram van Kampen
Wow... I must be tired, to me my reply still makes sense after three re-reads... what did I miss? EDIT: Ok, FINALLY starting to get it. It's about how do you prove/legislate what 'speeding' is when the law requires a higher accuracy than the devices used to enforce it. Right, easy. We change speedometers to enforce that they are accurate to within 5%. Then, we have some sort of chip/RFID or something that police equipment will, when "shot" at the car, ask "what is the driver being shown on the speedometer". If the speedo reads 61 in a 60 zone, the driver is speeding - the question of whether the driver is actually doing 61km/h becomes irrelevant because the driver "knows" he is speeding. Does that work?
-
Speed does not equal death, lack of driving skill equals death. Look at Germany, fastest roads in the world, one of the lowest death rates. Why? Best roads, very strict TUF(MOT) and hard driving test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
I agree, with the exception that I would say breaking rules equals death. You might be skilled, but if you regularly run lights, and fail to yield, you're bound to have an accident.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Because you're less likely to die at 30?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Because you're less likely to die at 30?
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I don't need a car to go that "fast"
-
Agreed - personally I think it's too easy to get a license. When you are driving, you are controlling a solid half-tonne plus lump of steel on wheels ranging speeds between (average in Aus) 60km/h and 100km/h. That sounds really dangerous to me, and that's because it is. To be perfectly honest, I should NOT have been allowed a license when I did get mine. I'm much more aware now after a few accidents and about 5 years experience, but really, what if my first accident, instead of a prang, had caused serious death or injury? How much training does it take to become a commercial airline pilot, and yet any hobo off the street can walk in and become a bus driver - as long as you have a car license and take their like week long course on bus driving. That's several tonnes of steel with up to 40 or 50 people on board hurtling through major cities at 60km/h. Sound dangerous? That's because it is. I drove a 100km from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast last weekend in the middle of the night. There was no-one on the road but me, and I did 140km/h most of the way. Admittedly if there'd been a kangaroo jump out in front of me I'd've been stuffed, but I'd've been just as stuffed if I'd been doing 100km/h. It's "near misses" that are the problem, not accidents. Start looking at what's involved in "near misses" - in my experience it's an idiot driver and a good driver. The problem is the "near miss" doesn't teach the idiot driver anything, they go "whoa, that was close" and just keep on keeping on... that is, until the "near miss" becomes "too near". Phew... glad I got that off my chest :) happy and safe driving - Easter's coming up, don't become one of the news highlights...
GlobX wrote:
I drove a 100km from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast last weekend in the middle of the night. There was no-one on the road but me, and I did 140km/h most of the way.
I hope you remembered to slow down for the fixed speed camera at Burpengary (northbound) and the fixed point to point speed camera that starts at Moby Vics (northbound) and ends just before the Caloundra turnoff near the big road condition advisory sign...
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
GlobX wrote:
I drove a 100km from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast last weekend in the middle of the night. There was no-one on the road but me, and I did 140km/h most of the way.
I hope you remembered to slow down for the fixed speed camera at Burpengary (northbound) and the fixed point to point speed camera that starts at Moby Vics (northbound) and ends just before the Caloundra turnoff near the big road condition advisory sign...
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Try driving in Melbourne. They will pip you for 1kmh above the limit. And the road toll? Increasing except for the last 2 years, and the last I heard, driving miles have decreased markedly due to the high fuel prices, so you'd hope the toll went down. We just call it a user-pays tax and get on with it.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
They will pip you for 1kmh above the limit.
Yes, that part does worry me a little, as this year's Camp Quality esCarpade is predominantly in Victoria and South Australia. Given that Booger Mobile is 47 years old and has a speedo in miles per hour, it could be an expensive trip for me if I'm not super careful!!
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Well, The real issue is that of Tolerances in measurement. How can you enforce a Zero Tolerance of a Speed Limit, if by law your Speedometer has to be within 10%, and the Police has equipment that has to be 'Accurate' within 5% There is No such thing as Absolute Truth, Masurement,Value. The Other issue is, We try to Drive down Road Deaths and Injuries. Each extra measure costs economically. The Actions of Society will cause victims to die. I think there is sufficient Health and Safety. Bram :)
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
The real issue is that of Tolerances in measurement. How can you enforce a Zero Tolerance of a Speed Limit, if by law your Speedometer has to be within 10%, and the Police has equipment that has to be 'Accurate' within 5%
Hey, hey, hey, don't try to use that, that thing, what you called it - logic? - here, mister!
-
Wow... I must be tired, to me my reply still makes sense after three re-reads... what did I miss? EDIT: Ok, FINALLY starting to get it. It's about how do you prove/legislate what 'speeding' is when the law requires a higher accuracy than the devices used to enforce it. Right, easy. We change speedometers to enforce that they are accurate to within 5%. Then, we have some sort of chip/RFID or something that police equipment will, when "shot" at the car, ask "what is the driver being shown on the speedometer". If the speedo reads 61 in a 60 zone, the driver is speeding - the question of whether the driver is actually doing 61km/h becomes irrelevant because the driver "knows" he is speeding. Does that work?
No, no, I have a better idea. Let's have chip/RFID in our heads so cops can "shot" and ask whether I've been thinking about breaking the speed limit.
-
Yeah I slowed down for the fixed speed camera at the weigh station or whatever it is at Burpengary, but what is the point to point speed camera???? Is that like the one on the Princess Hwy in north NSW that times you?? Shit! Since when has that existed?
Yes, it takes your image as you pass the first camera, and again at the end point, then averages your speed across the distance... Been there for quite a while... supposedly was turned on just before Christmas, but yet to hear of anyone I know actually getting a ticket from it... UPDATE: It's being used, but fines aren't being issued yet... Trial phase still... You may be very lucky, but you may also get a warning letter... Let us know if you do!! clickety[^]
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
