so i was watching tv and reading news as one does and theres been talk about road saftey and such, and it got me thinking. over the last few days 12 people have died on the roads which brings our total upto 198 just this year alone. thats f***ed. nearly 200 people dead in the 8 months, it makes me sick thinking about it.

theres been mention about restricting young drivers to slower vehicles and such, which i think is reasonable but i doubt will help in the long run. what really needs to happen is the government to step in and put money into roads and saftey design specifically. im so sick of driving to brisbane and back each day and dodging upto 6 speed traps on one stretch of road. all the police are interested in is making money and catching people who are late for work.

most people will agree, theres a huge ass increase in mobile ticket monkeys and speed cameras around the place, despite this the death toll is higher than last year and 200 people are still dead. the transport department needs a kick in the ass.

if it has no returns, it wont be implemented. its bulls***. all about money. like everything these days.

people are dieing for no reason, discuss.

i wont die coz im such an awesome driver

Because people can't f***ing merge and they drive in the right hand lane at 40k's an hour... end of story

P platers should only be allowed to drive these
http://homepage1.nifty.com/rscc/mm-eco_car.JPG

restriction of cars will do f***all, any decent car can get up to rediculous speeds no matter how powerful it is.

fix the roads, then fix the p-plater situation.

You know what'd be f***ing nice.

Some decent roads in brisbane.

I'm happy for people who speed to pay for it, i'm happy for people who run lights to pay for it, f***, shut down a hospital or two and pay for it.


Brisbane roads are a joke.

Eg. Vulture St, Milton Rd, Wynnum Rd

The roads in general are pretty decent, if you don't drive like a f***wit.

theres a huge ass increase in mobile ticket monkeys and speed cameras around the place, despite this the death toll is higher than last year and 200 people are still dead

That should give youa clue right there...and you cant lay the quality of roads as the major cause for road deaths. Its simply speed, inexperience and alcohol. Cant get away from those facts.

You also made a comment that 'they' are only making money trying to catch the people who are late for work? They might also be making money by catching the idiots late for work who are about to kill themselves or someone else.


Blaming the Trasnport department is a rediculous suggestion...blaming them for what? Not making driving test insanely difficult to pass? Please elaborate.

I have been to a s***load of fatal prangs and very rarely (if ever) did I see or observe anyone say, "wow , poor bugger what a s*** road, he didnt have a chance at 60kph"...generally it was something like, "f***, this guy must have been flyin, until he lost it" , OR "Phew smell the piss on this guys body, he's rank with beer".

Its always easy to point the finger and place blame on someone or something else when its a simple matter of self discipline and control.

Drive sober, dont drive like a maniac and guess what?... you are highly unlikely to get a ticket or get killed.

Its simply speed, inexperience and alcohol. Cant get away from those facts.

No it's people talking on phones causing it all, Just ask Jim.

No it's people talking on phones causing it all, Just ask Jim

s*** yeh I hate that too, we had a guy get killed out our way a couple of years back by a girl using her mobile/driving ect...she ran up the footpath and nailed the poor old chap out on his morning walk.

I'm not saying its not speed, stupidity and drinking causing accidents.

I'm just saying the roads are s***.

here we go again...

according to dr karl, you are more likely to die whilst being stopped by a cop, then from taking an E. laws are f***ed.. get over it.

If f***ing imbeciles want to go kill themsleves while speeding/drink-driving/talking on mobile , i say go for it. The gene pool is better off without you.
The problem is these f***wads taking out innocent bystanders or passengers in the proccess.

UM, does revenue raised from road fines go to roads at all?

Edit: ALso, agree 100% with Merilyn

last edited by Crizane Tribal at 21:26:32 22/Aug/05

gezzz lets see here..

speeding tossers are killing themselves on the road, i see no problem with that..

speeding tossers are not only killing themselves, but other peaple as well, that is really f***ed up..

the police are trying to get these speeding tossers off the road by fines and taking away all their points so they can't drive, not a bad idea..

queensland transport are a greedy lot as they get all the money from the fines and also they say how much the fine is going to be..

queensland transport filters a little bit of money to the dept. of mains roads and also a way smaller amount of money to the QPS for unkeep of the speed radar/camera equipment..

if you want to have a cry about the fine money, have a cry at queensland transport as the police are just trying to do their job of policeing..

if you don't want to get caught speeding then don't speed, its that simple..

if no one was speeding then there would be no fines going to QT to cry about and also it will free up more police to clean up other troubles around our city..

in short, speeding tossers are the problem, they are killing peaple on the roads which is wrong, the government and the QPS don't make these tossers speed, they do it all by themselves..

the simple answer is don't speed, drive safe and live..

Speed cameras although money spinners, i belive they do serve a purpose? If there were none, everyone would do 10-15 over the limit, and the real speeders would never slow down- putting us in a worse situation.

They are not causing death on the roads, its idiots that drink and drive/speed/take risks/drag at lights and generally do stupid s***. Not to mention drivers on drugs.

Thats my 2 cents.

People will always die from speeding there is no point trying to stop it completely, only to try and minimise it and I reckon the police are doing the best they can with that.

No it's people talking on phones causing it all, Just ask Jim.

heh you must have a better memory than me, I can't even recall what you're referring to =]

Because you were drunk at the time amirite?

yea good points, but from my observations speed cameras are set up during times and in locations that have revenue in mind, not saftey.

and yes transport issues are the responsibility of the transport department.

ive been in an accident involving a drunk, he could have killed me or someone else, its the transport departments job to ensure my saftey aswel, despite this guy being a total idiot.

in the end 200 people are dead. i dont accept that as a compromise. shure some idiots are dead and the human genepool has never had a brighter future, but most of them were just normal people.

it's natural selection. the stupid ones get picked off, followed by the weak. Occassionally there might be some poor unfortunate normal, intelligent person that gets killed by a d******* which is the sad part.

Eg. Vulture St, Milton Rd, Wynnum Rd

lol wynnum

My car seems to handle milton road, and any other road for that matter nF. Maybe you should piss off your race suspension for normal road suspension, that or keep your race car at a racetrack where the roads are made for your better suspension.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no light foot. Speed, get caught, deal with it. I am 150% behind young/and inexperienced drivers being limited in the power of cars that they can drive.

Until you get an Open license, you shouldn't be able to drive anything over 100 kw. You simply don't have the experience and generally the maturity to drive powerful vehicles

f***, you have to have an open license to ride a bike anymore powerful than a 250 (last time I checked anyways)

I have lived in both NSW and QLD a true queenslander - but much of my teenage years were spent in NSW and thats where I learnt to drive. As someone with extensive experience in both states, it has to be said - you people need to start using your blinkers!!

Although sometimes true.

In relation to your comment on where they set up speed traps.

I was watching a cop show on friday night- the NZ one.

I know its NZ, but i still think it applies. They set up a trap on the off ramp of a highway where the road bends into a tunnel, the speed limit drops to 50 from 100 way before the tunnel. They commented on how many people had died on the corner due to speed. 2 motorbike riders had died in the week prior to them setting up the trap. They caught, 10 people in one hour. Most of them going at least 20 k's over, one driver almost lost control on camera due to his speeding. I believe this is a good example of how cameras can be useful. I hope they continue to do things like this and serve a purpose other than being money makers.

how can you possibly blame people dying on the road on anyone but themselves... if f***wits drive stupidly, f***wits die stupidly. the only thing i care about is when f***wits drive stupidly and kill other people. people like that need to be put in prison for a long long time.

talking on a mobile phone while driving (pull over ffs you lazy dicks.) distracts your concentration as much as being over 0.05 apparently.

I have decided that the big problem with a lot of the laws is that they don't pay enough attention to Crimes That Can Hurt Other People.

There are some crimes that are more or less harmless, in that they don't really put anyone else's health, safety or lives at risk. Unfortunately the penalty for a lot of crimes that can hurt other people just doesn't seem enough to make people pay attention to it - and because unfortunately a lot of people are total asshats, they don't consider other people in their actions.

It seems pretty obvious that young people with overly powerful cars are going to cause a lot of accidents. It seems nuts to me that they should be able to get these sort of cars - I don't think its unreasonable to have a period of several years where they can only drive small-engined cars while they learn how to do stuff. s***, I've been driving for almost ten years and I wouldn't feel comfortable driving a hugely overpowered car around the streets - I know the temptation to smash the accelerator would be huge and hard to resist.

I have no problems with speed cameras - I'd even like to see more fixed speed cameras in areas that have proven to have multiple fatalities. Put massive warnings in front of them like to make people aware of them and I bet they slow down - probably more than you would if you put 'warning, life-threatening corner that has killed 20 people ahead' in front of it. Sadly people would probably pay more heed to a warning about their wallet than their life.

Speed cameras are just revenue raisers, always have been. Tell me what sort of deterrant is used when a flash goes off behind you (which you may not even see) and then you get a fine in the mail two weeks later?

Compare that to getting physically pulled over by a cop in a car or on a bike, or getting caught in a radar trap and getting stopped ahead as a deterant. I can tell you now from personal experience that for the next few weeks and almost any time you drive on that particular area again where you were stopped by the cop, you'll always watch your speed.

I'm much more in favour of many more RBT's being setup everywhere, I'm not a moron and I don't drink drive at all, I'd be more than happy to spend the 2-3 minutes, if that, getting RBT'd every time I entered or left the city on a Friday/Saturday or whatever night.

Something also has to be said, like nF has said, about the roads. Brisbane roads are among the s***tiest I've ever seen, QLD transports idea of fixing includes a wheelbarrow full of pothole s*** and patching up where-ever they feel like it. Milton road is one of the s***tiest roads due to the constant bandaid fixed they seem to keep applying. Kenmore road (where I live) has recently been resurfaced after about 10 years of it being nearly sub-standard in parts.

Police 'blitzes' do not work, the double demerits don't work and this 'tough stance' on youth doesn't work either - they come down hard for a matter of weeks and then theres a big publicity stunt on it, but thats the last we hear about it.

I do honestly believe that younger drivers need more education AND more time learning to drive than our current system, I know for myself personally that I spent 12 months on my learners, and while I was probably slack in getting my P licence, this time allowed me to go on several long trips with my family, as well as learn city conditions, and a bunch of weather conditions, which I'm almost certain are the cause of a lot of accidents, when people are completely un-prepared for what happens when theres fog/rain etc.

I wonder how many people have to die before they put up the "Black Spot Ahead" sign you see every now an then

Pyscho?

Well, I'm personally a person who has been caught speeding.

I find it interesting to see people's reactions when they find out. I find it very hard to believe, given the chance, that people won't do something crazy.

My mum is a good example (god I sound lame), she's in her early 40's and has been driving since she was 17. She has had no tickets, caused no accidents (3 years back a guy rear ended the family van at a set of lights, idiot had overloaded his trailer... brakes sucked on his Falcon).

She does speed, but what she considers safe... she will often do 100 in a 80 zone on a road designed for 100. To add to that, I know of many roads that were designed for higher speeds that are restricted for various reasons (company I work for does a lot of the design...). Some reasons are stupid, others are quite smart. 50km/h in Residential is good in my opinion. But 80 on a rual road is kind of stupid (except for maybe cows... but that's rare down my way).

I believe the local areas should be able to gain more control over their speed limits... however, this does mean that people would have to take some action... which they don't. That would lead to a crap load of stupidly low speed limits (seems only certain kinds of people take action... old weird and weirder).

The roads are generally built to a budget (I've seen some, they are crazy!) and so materials quality and time is always low. They don't compress the ground under properly when resurfacing etc... This causes the lower quality road, pot holes and bumps etc...

However, young drivers are often in experienced. More driver training is needed, passing that s***hole idea of a test was stupid. They could train a monkey to do it (I seriously believe this). I was lucky to have a driving instructor who was a ex amatuer rally driver from England. He didn't tell me what was in the test for ages (he gave me a choice, learn to pass the test or learn to drive). I choose to drive, he taught me s***loads. I now excel my sister and father at driving ability. Only person she has driving without having to close her eyes lol.

Then there are the "mature" people... my dad is an awful driver. He isn't the worst, but I hate it. My sister is also awful. They both drive with their emotions affecting them. This leads to some stupid mistakes.

Then there are tired drivers, drunk drivers, hoons (young and old), bike riders (but the ones I'm talking about are hoons) and abusive people who put others into nervious situations.

I'm young and male, I like going fast... I love the feeling of the launch of the cars and the G's pushing me into the seat. I know the safetest place to do that isn't the track but it isn't really affordable for most.

So many problems with the roads... you can't beat it all, but they can try to improve them.

Also, I'm getting my bike license next, nobody is perfect, but I'll leave the action for the track!

Just last week i noticed 4 people drink driving on different occasions. It's hard enough staying 100% focused when sober, so as far as im concerned your alcohol levels need to be zilch before you hop behind the wheel.


last edited by Booyah at 22:04:16 22/Aug/05

I tried using the handsfree kit with my mobile while driving, but found it more distracting than just using the phone normally. Wires n s*** hanging around etc etc...

but now i just using the speaker phone so it's all good.

It was wierd tho, like after driving while on mobile and then I'd finish the call, I couldn't actually remember driving while i'd been on it. It's like i was on autopilot...

but yes, i have speaker now so its ok.

Yup,
/me agrees that ALL drivers would benefit from better training.

Why not make a defensive driving course compulsory upon renewing a license? If it was a matter of cost, then include it in the cost of vehicle registration as some sort of subsidy?

last edited by HERMITech at 22:10:59 22/Aug/05

My car seems to handle milton road, and any other road for that matter nF. Maybe you should piss off your race suspension for normal road suspension, that or keep your race car at a racetrack where the roads are made for your better suspension.

Perhaps if you drove something that wasn't a piece of s*** you'd realise that the roads are bad. Milton Rd heading west is cut up real bad.

My car has stock suspension, just lowered springs. And the racing stripe doesn't make it a racing car, in case you didn't realise. I think you'll find anyone with a car built on anything later than 60s technology would notice the quality of the roads. Milton Rd since you mentioned it is cut up a storm west of the brewery, especially heading towards mt cootha. Even if you couldn't feel it as your floating on a cushion of emotion you'd be able to see it clearly through your tear filled eyes.

in other countries like germany the lisencing proceedures are far more strict. first up its heaps expensive, so people have to know their s*** before they do anything. they have to complete a set amount of hours in daytime, nighttime and autobahn driving with a qualified professional. it basically produces a better quality of driver.

the police over there are highly professional and do a few years of training before they can even pick up a gun, compared to our police which do a few months of tafe and training. the police over there conduct themselves in a more professional manner and dont have any ticket quotas to fill. the amount of work they have to put into becomming an officer just shows how dedicated they are to doing thier job. unlike in australia where the majority of recruits are ex tradespeople. copying this example would be a start.

p.s
putting up warning signs to warn of hazardous sections based on accidents would do really well too.

Speed cameras are just revenue raisers, always have been. Tell me what sort of deterrant is used when a flash goes off behind you (which you may not even see) and then you get a fine in the mail two weeks later?

Compare that to getting physically pulled over by a cop in a car or on a bike, or getting caught in a radar trap and getting stopped ahead as a deterant. I can tell you now from personal experience that for the next few weeks and almost any time you drive on that particular area again where you were stopped by the cop, you'll always watch your speed.

If you want to pay more in taxes to pay for people to do a machines job go ahead. I bet a camera could catch the same or more offenders, far more cheaply than a team of police. The deterrent should be the money that you lose from speeding. If this isn't a big enough deterrent, increase the fine. Fines are an excellent punishment because the money goes back to the government. If the fines aren't deterring people, increase the fines.

If you want to pay more in taxes to pay for people to do a machines job go ahead. I bet a camera could catch the same or more offenders, far more cheaply than a team of police. The deterrent should be the money that you lose from speeding. If this isn't a big enough deterrent, increase the fine. Fines are an excellent punishment because the money goes back to the government. If the fines aren't deterring people, increase the fines.

Ahh but you see, I'm not a moron, and I notice the f***ing huge white 4WD with a camera out the front of it well before I'm passed it. To date, I've not been caught by a speed camera.

I've been physically pulled over (doing 63 in a 50 zone less than 20 meters from my driveway) and to this date I do not go faster than 50km/h around where I live, and infact in most 50 zones.

The detterant on being physically pulled over is you are shown there right infront of you, BAM we caught you, right here, right now. The speed camera goes oh yeah you're caught but like f*** it, keep speeding for the next two weeks while we mail out a photo of your car.

most people dont realise but, the speed cameras arent owned buy the government, theyre contracted by a company called tenix which makes alot of profit per fine.

thats the point. Doesn;t the fact that speed cameras are out there want to make you slow down? it does for me? Are you that silly that you do not care anout speed cameras? Alot of people do, like me, and this is the reason i DO NOT speed. Thats how they serve there purpose. If you are scared about the money then STOP speeding. I Do not see why its hard for people to just slow down anyway.

most people dont realise but, the speed cameras arent owned buy the government, theyre contracted by a company called tenix which makes alot of profit per fine.

Need a source for that one.

So in effect the difference is that you found out that you were caught straight away instead of in a weeks time? Or was it just you were intimidated by being pulled over by police? Well that might be a huge difference to you, but to most people having to pay ~$150 (how much are fines at the moment?) whenever they find out is generally what s***s them off.

I bet a camera could catch the same or more offenders, far more cheaply than a team of police.

You do realise that the cop who is sitting in the car with the camera is actually on overtime?

Exactly, and the fear of having to pay money/loose your licence, is a speed deterant. This also saves lives.

So? I bet they make more money than they cost.

The $16. 00 per CityLink speed camera infringement bounty has been revealed to the world to see!
A PRIVATE company is being paid up to $16 a ticket for each speeding motorist it catches on camera in the CityLink tunnels. The Bracks Government has revealed it struck a special bonus deal with Tenix Solutions in September 2000.
Millions of dollars of public money was being paid to Tenix through speed traps in the tunnels, it confirmed.
News of the deal comes after strong denials last week that the Bracks Government had made speed camera bonus deals. Tenix is also being paid almost $60,000 a month just to provide and install the digital camera technology in the tunnels. Full story here.

Looks dodgy and only in victoria anyway.

gsdfewfw


last edited by fpot at 22:41:09 22/Aug/05

regulate the speed of cars, its pretty f***ing simple.

il quote myself here from bc..

If people didnt drive away after loosing their licence it would prove that the current system works. But is dosnt so people dont give a rats.

Drink driving imo is the WORST driving offence. 40% of all road accidents are from drink driving (i read this in wheels). I agree with these rules and punishments if you get busted for it.

YET speeding is the most targeted offence and most heavily fined. In the state of SA the percentage of road accidents because of SPEEDING IS LESS THAN 1 PERCENT. So now your wondering 'why would the government target speeding so much"?
Simple answer, Its the easiest and cheapest way for the government to milk money out of motorists. (sorry about my rant but i just lost my licence for speeding because i was on 1 pont for a year)

i can not get a work licence, therefore i wont have a JOB for 6 months. yet someone that has been done Drink driving can still drive on the road.


the whole system is rooted. It needs to be revised and the points system remoddled.

yet someone that has been done Drink driving can still drive on the road.

They can?

Or we could jsut start to move towards how nsw is, they have like automatic cameras for each lane under each bridge. i was told they where for that fee u have to pay to use the highways etc.. but im sure the police, with all their wisdom, could change it so that it checked speed and took a photo.

Making p platers have "crappy" cars will do nothing, everyone will just do up those crappy cars and possibly make it even more dangerous with like a v-tech engine in some peice of s*** beetle or something. Custom modeing their cars so they actually go faster ..

Giving them fines and taking their licence does nothing either, woohoo a $200 fine, doesnt mean s*** to some ppl. Oh no a point, ill pay someone to take it for me. Oh no i lost my licence, woopee. Just have to drive faster so the police dont catch me.

There is no way that the government, police can stop it. This new rule they are thinking of bringing in, about no driving after midnight or some s***, just imagine the havok this will cause. No good what so ever will come out of this it will probaly just make ppl speed so they get to their destination faster if its after midnight and im pretty sure that most ppl would rather have drunk ppl driving around being idiots well away from them, than having them roaming the streets causing havok, destrying property etc.

In the state of SA the percentage of road accidents because of SPEEDING IS LESS THAN 1 PERCENT.

That is clearly bulls***.

In QLD its ~25% or something.

its all money raising, thats all it is.

they're focusing on littler things, i mean what about all those drug dealers, rapists and the like... its just f***ing bulls***.


i admit, i was caught speeding, i copped it on the chin and moved on. it was my fault.

but its just getting beyond a joke. another thing related to cars 'he's got a nice looking car/ import', he's automatically pulled over.

f*** the pigs.

perhaps in sa.

Stupid people like sc00bs and digital make me want to condone speeding.

f*** the pigs, and here i was thinking i wanted to become a cop onetime

aha you're kidding me.

"oi bro your car isn't low enough, i'll give ya 2k cash for it"



last edited by Booyah at 22:55:10 22/Aug/05

That is clearly bulls***.
In QLD its ~25% or something.

no, it isn't.
in QLD i bet that 25% of those crashes wouldnt have anything to do with speeding being the primary apparent error of the accident.


Its all about money, very simple.

Revenue raisers as they may be but...if you don't speed, you don't get the fine. I never quite understood why people blame the police for fines when they (the driver) were the people breaking the speed limit. I haven't had any fines for speeding yet, and you can bet that if I do get one I sure as hell won't blame anybody else but myself for it.

Digital everyone here has justified there opinion, so just saying its about money does not cut it. There have been more reasons to suggest otherwise thet I and others have given. So stop repeating what everyone else has discussed already.

Police 'blitzes' do not work, the double demerits don't work and this 'tough stance' on youth doesn't work either - they come down hard for a matter of weeks and then theres a big publicity stunt on it, but thats the last we hear about it.

I wouldn't say thats true, I lost my licence speeding, and im fkn wary as hell about doing it now. It works. Maybe not the threat of it, but when it happens to you, you take heed.

Roads need to be fixed, and Driver education and training need to drastically be increased. Defensive driving courses being compulsory would be a good start, and there is obviously a whole lot of other things that could be done too.

sayin speeding causes accidents in misleading. the ads r so u get less upset about the fines. but a car traveling twice as fast has four times as much energy,meaning more damage.lots of factors cause accidents , speeding generally not the cause i dont mean its safe . u can get booked for travelin to slow on the highway cause u become an hazard on the road.

hey guys whats going on in this thread?


A 1990's spec Commodore can do 150km/h+

A 1990's spec WRX can do 150km/h+


Which one is going to stop fastest?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

But aside from that, fatalities are caused by stupid drivers going too fast. That has been the case since the dawn of time and its not going to change. Its practically f***ing hardwired into human evolution.

im so sick of driving to brisbane and back each day and dodging upto 6 speed traps on one stretch of road. all the police are interested in is making money and catching people who are late for work.

n0000000bssss!

The REASON why speeding is targeted is NOT because it makes money in fines, it is BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY OF REDUCING FATALITIES.

Simple physics people. Simple.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity

Look at that, velocity has more importance then the mass of an object. Halving the velocity reduces the Kinetic Energy of an object by 4.

The Kinetic Energy (and the related forces) of an object is what smashes a person to death.

A high percentage of road fatalities are pedestrians getting hit by cars.

A car traveling at 60km/h has MUCH more of an impact on a person then a car traveling at 50km/h. In fact it reduces the chance of a fatality quite considerably. From Death down to injury.
THIS IS WHY THE SPEED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WAS REDUCED TO 50 KM/H.


SOOOOOOOOO if you wanted to reduce the road fatalities with limited $'s you would have to reduce the VELOCITY (read speed) of vehicals, as this is sooo much cheaper then altering roads.
SURE we could alter the roads to make for faster travelling, but you would have to pay more Road taxes, and you all whinge about taxes so that is hard $'s to come by.

Speed cameras are there to REDUCE the VELOCITY of vehicals which wll considerably decrease the damage in crashes! It dosnt so much reduce the crashes (people will still be tards no matter what you do) more so the damage and thus fatalities.

However a majority of idiots think that speed cameras are all about revenue so ignore the simple physics that they should have learnt in school and continue to speed.
Just remember when you flatten a pedestrian that if you had of been going 10 km/h less you might not have killed someone....

^ ^ ^

Good post.

A 1990's spec Commodore can do 150km/h+

A 1990's spec WRX can do 150km/h+


Which one is going to stop fastest?

That depends on the wheels of the vehicle and the friction coefficiant of said wheels on the ground.
Simply you can do this:

v * v = u * u + 2 * -(frictionCoefficiant * 9.8 (gravity is the Normal force acting on the object with friction)) * s
Where, v = final velocity (0 m/s) and u = 41.6 m/s
Friction Coefficiant = 0.5 - 0.8 Assuming both cars have ABS breaks. That is rubber on dry asphalt. Lets use 0.8.
s = distance to stop.
so pluging all that in:

Both cars would stop at 110 meters, assuming both cars had the same size and type of wheels with 0.8 friction coefficiant and ABS breaks.

EDIT: I spose the way the car distributes the weight on the tyres would also affect the friction coefficiant, not too sure about that tho. Also the amount of Ayrodynamic lift due to design of the car would also affect the fc. As would the road surface under the wheels. However that is getting complicated and the above is close enough.


last edited by Tollaz0r! at 00:00:21 23/Aug/05

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 00:16:16 23/Aug/05

Toll, heavier cars take longer to stop too.

Both cars stop in the same time when met with a brick wall.

they may slow people down but they dont lower the death toll. thats the point of this thread, the death toll is too high (higher than last year at this time) and increasing and all i see are more and more cameras. well, sorry to say they arent doing s***. yes speed kills, but i can garuntee you its late at night, when there are no cars around, and eeeeeeeeeeespecially no speed cameras. funny that.

no cop radars are bulls***. You say going over hte limit by 7km is such a bad thing? the ticket for 110$ seems to think so.. how the f*** does 7km equate to 110 bucks? i dont give a f*** what any of you people think unless you have a licence... and if you DO have a licence, and you STILL disagree with me, then you are a tard.

Speeding is natural, any dick who says otherwise is missinformed. I dont purposefuly speed, but a camera located the bottom of my hill seems to think that im a danger to the ZERO population residing in the area of the bottom of the hill.... at 4am in the morning....sure...

Thats the bit that sucks, it makes more sense to place a speed camera at the dip leading up to a huge ass hill where no pedestrians walk than further up the road where there is a school with pedestrian crossings. I think camera's are a good idea but I just wish they would use them more in critical spots instead of what will net them the most money.

I'd just rather a camera at a black spot than sitting 20m before a speed sign where people speed up to safely merge into traffic.

how the f*** does 7km equate to 110 bucks?

cock snap, its a deterent.

Last month I was thrashing a new commonwhore v6 hire car they go realy well @ 180km ph but at that speed it has realy nad fuel economy no people before you start I was not speeding this was between Kathern and Darwin. The roads up there are heaps better than round here, well not the dirt ones.

Since they started telivising the road toll statistics there has been little change in the attitude of drivers. I would like to know how many of those people were killed in an deliberate, that is someone involved was doing something ilegal therefor not an accident.

regulate the speed of cars, its pretty f***ing simple.

NOOOOOOOO
dont do that

else all the money ive spent on my car will be (even mroe) wasted!

This forum needs a way of dredging up the last big thread on "Speeding!? Revinue or Saftey!?!?" so we don't all have to keep repeating ourselves. Or alternatively, it might be interesting to see if some peoples opinions have changed... or it might not.
We need teleporters, all problems solved!

u can get booked for travelin to slow on the highway cause u become an hazard on the road

When I see evidence of that happening, I'll believe it
When I see people failing to keep left and being booked for it, I'll believe it

We need teleporters, all problems solved!

Hell yeah, but I'll definately wait until they iron the bugs out of the software first ;P

And if it's software component is written with anything developed by MS - I'll pass altogether =)

I thought SUVs/4WDs were to blame for all road accidents ?

Speeding is natural, any dick who says otherwise is missinformed. I dont purposefuly speed, but a camera located the bottom of my hill seems to think that im a danger to the ZERO population residing in the area of the bottom of the hill.... at 4am in the morning....sure...

You're one of the people that I was talking about! What a coincidence, running into one on the forums!

Just because YOU think something is safe for YOU, doesn't necessarily make it safe for other people. What, you think noone has ever had a car crash at 4am in the morning?

Its like Top Gun: "Top Gun rules of engagement exist for your safety and that of your team." The rules aren't just there to protect you - they're there to try to protect you from hurting yourself, but more importantly, FROM HURTING OTHERS. You never know who is going to be Just Around That Next Corner.

Not speeding doesn't mean you won't have an accident - it just means you're less likely to have one. When your life and the lives of others are at stake, I don't think its unreasonable to think that driving a little slower is a good idea.

cops shouold get off the road. then we can all speed as fast as we want as if self-regulation wouldn't work.

also most of the dicks above have no idea how easy it is for anything to go wrong

trog wins because he'd thrown in the Top Gun rules of engagement bit

No one ever listens to my proposals for jetpacks.

Finally, we can close this argument. Speed Does Kill! and Cameras work as well.

Speeding is natural, any dick who says otherwise is missinformed.

This one is funny, I don't see too many natural humans or animals that can run at and sustained a speed of over 100Km/h. Unless you're a cyborg or something?

You aren't taking a wide enough view Opec ;) Relative to the centre of the Earth we all spin at approximately 1570kph & relative to the centre of the Sun we zoom round in space at about 107800kph! ;D

[edit] also... 200 fatalies out of a total population of say 1.8million (just for brisbane alone)... that's only a 1 in 9000 chance of a fatal accident per year... a mere 0.011*%. I'll take those odds. :D

last edited by demon at 12:17:38 24/Aug/05

LOL demon :)

Top gun would have been better if Bruce had been in it.

Top gun would have been better if Bruce had been in it.

Or at very least he'd improved the height average of the pilots.

nf is right though, brisbane roads are f***ing s***, eg. vulture street and milton road. you f***ers trying going from your puffy stock suspension to harder springs, you realise how really s*** the roads are

that said i wouldn't part with my gain in handling for anything

Half of you are already brain washed by the bulls*** advertising campaigns and speeding kills slogans you've seen on television, the drive behind the campaigns is to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving while the real causes of accidents are not being addressed.

Contrary to popular belief there is such a thing as "safe speeding". Last time you did 72 in 60 zone, did you cause an accident? Did you lose control of your car? It's more a matter of driving to suit condtions, proper driver education and changing driver attitudes that will see a reduction in road tolls, that being said it's probable that fatalities on the roads will increase as the number of cars on the roads increases and the chance of accidents occuring goes up.

Digital is also correct, speed in most cases is not the primary reason most accidents are caused on our roads, driver error on the other hand is responsible for most of those accidents.

last edited by wolfieee at 11:30:41 23/Aug/05

speed in most cases is not the primary reason most accidents are caused on our roads, driver error on the other hand is responsible for most of those accidents.

Dont you think when you're driving at higher speeds you have a higher chance of making errors ?


last edited by Booyah at 11:54:42 23/Aug/05

the whole "speed kills" thing is a sham. the only speed limits i religiously stick to are the school zones.

i also agree that our roads are s***. i could get onto my "hate beattie, he spends all our taxes on s*** instead of important stuff" bandwagon but i don't have the energy today.

i drove over about 10 potholes on the way to work today. so annoying. thank god i go opposite the peak hour traffic or this would be a real rage.

Careful infi, you don't want to become a victim of Road Rage. Stay cool. :)

last edited by A_W at 12:04:25 23/Aug/05

No i don't believe speed on its own will increases the chances for error, its a combination of factors dependent on the conditions you're driving in and the road you're on. If i'm driving on a dead straight road doing 60klms / hour on a fine day and tomorrow on that same road i do 70klms / hour on another fine day, my chances of error have not increased.

Again there is such a thing as "safe speeding", the law is the only thing that stops you from safely speeding because someone mandated that 60 clicks a particular zone is the "safe speed".

Ok so there is such a thing as safe speeding depending on some factors like you mentioned, but how is the government going to regulate that? what they're going to change the speed limit depending on the weather or the smoothness of the road ? and let's just say they did increase the speed limit by 10k for the sake of "safe speeding" on some particular roads then people are going to be speeding over that anyways (myself included). Where do you stop ? (no pun intended if it existed). It goes back to the simple point trog mentioned about how you might think something is safe for you but perhaps not safe for others and vice versa.


last edited by Booyah at 12:45:33 23/Aug/05

the bottom line with relation to speeding is that each k faster means less time to react to unexpected outside factors.

as long as you have a safe reaction time provided for, you cannot be speeding? ask hunter anyways

Exactly, i'm not arguing with that point, different folks different strokes. But that being said there's a blanket standard which is applied to roads and speeding when in reality each road / driving scenario is different, does anyone actually knows why these speeds are deemed safe?

Bottom line is i can't argue with the law, if i continually do 70 in a 60 zone i'll eventually get caught and fined, but i refuse to believe the rhetoric regarding speeding in advertising campaigns as the last eight years of driving high powered vehicles has taught me very differently.

For sure, unexpected factors, also different drivers, different skill levels, quicker reaction times, better driver training, etc, there's too many variables involved.

It's soo damn immoral that they put paedophiles in jail! I mean, these are regular people who happen to like unloading into little kiddies. And then the evil government goes and sticks them in a place where they are surrounded by adults (I mean hello, they don't even like adults) who will probably rape them! Imagine how traumatic it must be for someone who prefers children to be forced into sex with an adult. It is so immoral that I think the law should be changed so that paedophilia goes unpunished.

discuss.

I have but one request. That nobody ever again tries to wrap up an outlandish point of view in a veneer of reasonablness.

Let's face it, the only reason people bitch and moan about how immoral it is that the government might gain financially from their offences, is that it sounds so damn REASONABLE to talk about the morality of the laws and penalties our governments make for us. But the reality is that these people don't give two s***s about the morality of our laws or otherwise. What they are trying to say is that this law treads on their inclination to contravene it, and therefore they hate it. But it sounds so kind of looney-fringe, yeehaw, gun-lubin', ritarded to say, "Such and such a law should be changed because I wan't to do the things it forbids me from doing." So instead, people search high and low for any (frequently ridiculous) way that they can make their opposition to the law seem to stem from some enlightened, reasonable sentiment. We wouldn't stand for it from paedophiles, yet when it comes to traffic offences, it's a free-for-all.

When it comes down to it, if you really believed that the government shouldn't benefit financially from your offences, you would be writing letters and organising petitions asking to have speeding fines replaced with a couple of months in jail.




ps. I am not serious about the first paragraph, I am just trying to demonstrate to you how outraged you should feel when someone tries to make out that a law is immoral just because they don't want to obey it.




edit : added sentence "We wouldn't stand for it from..."

last edited by hUON at 14:13:48 23/Aug/05

The bottom line is... (we've had a few bottom lines so far but this one is touching dead dragon fossils)

God's Law > Man Made Law

Discuss and destroy

*puts flame proof jacket on*

I think what wolfiee is trying to say that safe speeding is just at a level where the chances of risk are significantly reduced. Whether that be 60km/h or 70km/h. Ultimately the only truely safe speed is 0km/h but it just isnt feasable.

A lot of the time I might end up speeding, but in the end if I get caught I just pay the fine and dont complain.

I agree with shad. Sometimes I decide that I want to go faster than the speed limit. I do so because it suits me to do so. I don't care about other peoples safety or anything else. I take the risk I might kill myself or someone else. And if I get fined, I pay it, recognise I deserved it and move on.

In regards to what huon was saying, I think community service would be a hell of a worse deterant to speeding than fines would be.

You have to be religious to believe in "gods law" .

The only laws i believe in are common sense, logic, and societys established laws. (rape, murder, robbery, so on. general stuff.)

Shad - In regards to what huon was saying, I think community service would be a hell of a worse deterant to speeding than fines would be.

Shad makes a very good point in the above quote. A fine is money, it does nothing like real punishment that requires effort.

last edited by A_W at 13:43:29 23/Aug/05

I take the risk I might kill myself or someone else every time I step into a car. I also take the risk that if I change the station on my radio that I am significantly increasing the chance of hurting myself or someone else. I take the risk that if I didnt get a good nights sleep that I have a larger chance of having an accident.

Oh and a point would be good, so driving is about risk management as well and I can understand that speeding is the easier of the risks to judge. But who has never looked down at the radio to change the station or used a phone (hand held or hands free), turned around to yell at the kids fighting, perved at females on the side of the road(that ones a killer for sure), had their attention focused on talking to a passenger, etc.

last edited by shad at 13:58:31 23/Aug/05

Shad makes a very good point in the above quote. A fine is money, it does nothing like real punishment that requires effort.

Ummm, i dont know about you but some people work hard to earn their money. Unless you work for john howard by lining up ques and filling fortnightly forms at centerlink.

Most people are crappy drivers.

I have to deal with them every day in sydney traffic, on a motorcycle. Am i stupid? Maybe.. But i've been riding to work in the city, 50kms a day for the past 18 months, without a close call.

God's Law > Man Made Law

Discuss and destroy

*puts flame proof jacket on*

Extract below from "Passion, Book 2 of the Ashuak Chronicles by Tony Shillitoe

"Then what god do you worship?"
"I don't worship any god"
"So you are an unbeliever?"
"No, I can't be an unbeliever"
"But you said you did not worship any god"
"Yes, When there's no god, then there's nothing to worship"
"Which makes you an unbeliever!"
"No! - Belief or unbelief both imply that what is being either believed or not believed exists. Since I say that there are no gods then I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods because there are no gods"
"But *insert god(s) name here* exists whether you believe in him or not"
"Precisely my point. And who says your god exists?"
"It is written in the holy word. The Holy Scriptures are testimony to *insert god(s) name here* existence"

"Your holy scriptures were written by men, like you priest. The word is nothing more than the imagination of priests"

Sure driving is about risk management, and one of those risks is the risk you will get fined. You should manage it like any other risk while driving. Namely, do whatever it takes to reduce the risk to a reasonable level (whatever this means for you). If you wind up getting fined anyway, well bad lack, and hopefully your risk management skills vis a vis this risk improve for the future.

I just get annoyed about the people who keep banging on about traffic enforcement=revenue raising=totally immoral; because it is a complete obfuscation of an opinion that they fervently believe but are embarrassed of. Have some balls people, only fags whinge about revenue-raising. Instead, proudly proclaim, "The government is wrong to fine me for speeding because I am better qualified than a speed sign to decide what speed presents an acceptable risk to me and those around me!" If this makes people think less of you or your opinion... *shrugs*

Full credit to those on this thread who have already said this.

Booyah said - Ummm, i dont know about you but some people work hard to earn their money. Unless you work for john howard by lining up ques and filling fortnightly forms at centerlink.

It doesn't matter how poor or rich you are, fines still remain a temporary deterrant that affect only your wallet and not you as a person. Unfortunatley for the government policing community service requirements would cost more than a simple straight up fine. Hence the wallet hurt remains as the best policy.

I just get annoyed about the people who keep banging on about traffic enforcement=revenue raising=totally immoral; because it is a complete obfuscation of an opinion that they fervently believe but are embarrassed of. Have some balls people, only fags whinge about revenue-raising. Instead, proudly proclaim, "The government is wrong to fine me for speeding because I am better qualified than a speed sign to decide what speed presents an acceptable risk to me and those around me!" If this makes people think less of you or your opinion... *shrugs*

Revenue raising is just part of the issue. The law is the law, you break it, expect to get punished. No one has an issue there. That being said.....

Would you rather a nation of people who watch the road or are continuously watching their speedo's because they're afraid they might go 3klms over the speed limit and get slapped with a fine for basically just driving. I'd much rather be watching the road than my speedo when it comes to assessing my risk's. At the moment in Queensland, we're lucky we don't have to deal with the speeding campaigns they run in NSW's & VIC.

/me wonders if i can program my autronic ecu to never go above 60!?

^^ Revenue raising is NOT part of the issue. No one really cares that the government makes money out of fines. It is an irrelevant side track that is thrown in because it enables us to hide our more redneck opinions behind what at first glance seems a progressive, reasonable and enlightened argument.

For that matter your second point is much the same thing. I mean, is anybodies accelerator really so sensitive that if you take your eyes off your speedo for one second, you will be going 5km/h over the speed limit? All it should take is a 1/2 second glance every so often to make sure you are not speeding. Unless of course your cars instruments are s***.

Again, if you think the speeding laws need to be changed, be man enough to step up and say what your REAL reasons are.

last edited by hUON at 16:50:03 23/Aug/05

At least no one cares that the government is making money out of traffic fines in general. That is not to say that everybody likes fines when it is them doing the paying.

O god did it blame him


god made pot witch isnt taxable but man made beer where there is heaps of tax

Oh what the gay?

Religion enters a car thread?

Didn't expect that.

Also, q3 requires way more skill than counter-strike.

q3 requires way more skill than counter-strike.

way to start it!

Toll, heavier cars take longer to stop too.

Actually..

F=m*a.

Maximum Frictional Force (on a car on a flat road on earth at approx sea level) = u * m * g.
This gives the maximum breaking acceleration (decceleration) of an object.

F = m*a
F = m*u*g.
m*a = m*u*g.
The mass cancel out giving:
a = u*g.
That is the maximum accelerative force that an object can stop at on a level surface with friction. See how mass dosnt affect breaking force?

v * v = u * u + 2 * a * s. or v * v = u * u + 2 * u * g * s

For this to work you have to assume that the vehicle is at maximum breaking force for the length of the stoping distance.
This is basically how coppers find out how fast a car was going by just looking at the skid marks on the road.

Ok wolfieee consider this:

Your driving down the street doing 60km/h down a 50km/h street. Some random person steps out from behind a bush and walks across the road, talking on their cell phone and totally dosnt notice you. You slam on your breaks, lets assume your really good and you dont skid at all, and break at maximum force. At 60 km/h you need roughly 17.7 meters to stop. At 50km/h you need roughly 12 meters to stop.
So between 60km/h and 50km/h you have about 5.3 meters differance. That could be the differnce between you killing someone or stoping in time.
Sure you could swerve and do other defensive driving, better hope that another car is coming the other way, or that the street pole isnt in the way and so on.

YOU ARE NOT IMUNE TO ACCIDENTS. It is a statistical chance that you will have an accident, a certain percentage. You might be lucky and go through your whole life not having an accident. You can put this down to random chance combined with driving skills. At the same time you could have an accident. The whole idea of speed limits is that SOMEONE ELSE (teams of people) with the proper knowledge have sat down and worked out that YES as long as people are driving accidents will happen. So it is best to minimise damage, preferably droping a fatality to injury. Teams of people have worked out what kind of force is almost 100% going to kill someone, then find out what reasonable speeds people can do to lower that percentage. It turns out that 50km/h is about as fast as you can go and have a reasonable chance of living if you are struck by something at that speed or lower.

Oh and a point would be good, so driving is about risk management as well and I can understand that speeding is the easier of the risks to judge. But who has never looked down at the radio to change the station or used a phone (hand held or hands free), turned around to yell at the kids fighting, perved at females on the side of the road(that ones a killer for sure), had their attention focused on talking to a passenger, etc.

exactly the reason why speeding is bad. With all these distraction you best being going as slow as you can.

Would you rather a nation of people who watch the road or are continuously watching their speedo's because they're afraid they might go 3klms over the speed limit and get slapped with a fine for basically just driving.

So are you saying that with all your self proclaimed driving skillz you cant accurately judge your speed at any given time?

Toll, don't you know the laws of physics don't apply to cockstains?

Ahhhhhh s***, I forgot that.

Cockstains plz disreguard my posts as they dont apply to you in your magical world of make belive...

this isn't a magical world of make believe? what the hell is it then? you think this is real

Hahaha, toll wins the thread. I can't believe some of you tards are so arrogent to honestly believe that it's ok for you to put other people's lives in danger because you are so f***ing selfish. If you get killed or brutally injured by someone else who was speeding will you still be so defensive of people's "right" to speed then?

arrogent = arrogant... cant edit my post for some crazy reason, oh wells.

Would you rather a nation of people who watch the road or are continuously watching their speedo's because they're afraid they might go 3klms over the speed limit and get slapped with a fine for basically just driving.

If you need to be constantly looking at your speedo to work out if you are speeding you need to go straight back to the Dept of Transport and hand your licence back to them; obviously you are incompetent. At worst you need to look at it as often as you check the cars behind you.

Maybe you need to realise that a speed limit is the maximum speed limit and not the minimum speed limit.

At the moment in Queensland, we're lucky we don't have to deal with the speeding campaigns they run in NSW's & VIC.

Back to crying about campaigns … Most people thought speeding like a f***head was stupid before the ‘speed kills’ ad campaigns.

That is the maximum accelerative force that an object can stop at on a level surface with friction. See how mass dosnt affect breaking force?

wait hang on. I dont understand teh maths, but are you saying that a car that weighs two tonnes, running the same tyre size and compond to a car that is only 800kg will brake and come to a complete stop just as quickly?

The rate of maximum negative acceleration would be the same for both cars, assuming both cars have exactly the same friction co-efficiant for the tyres and the Normal force of the car to the earth. You would probably find that in reality a 2tonn car would have differnt wheel setup and a differnct friction coefficiant. Also the 800kg car would probably also have good ayrodynamics which would change the Normal force acting on the car and so could be Greater then the force of gravity. It is the differences in the Normal Force and friction coefficiant that alter the ability of cars to stop.
This is why spoilers on the back of cars can be important, it provides downforce on the car and in turn wheels which increases the normal force, which in turn increase both the acceleration and decceleration capacities of cars.
The reason why slicks are used in races is because the less tread the greater the friction co-efficiant and thus the greater the acceleration and deceleration.. Turning corners is an accelerative force so it helps that too. Bald tyres suck in the wet as they cant disperse the water under the tyres very well so make the frC much smaller which makes the accelerative force small, so it it very hard to stop, start and turn.

The power that a car can pump out to make energy that can be used to do work is related to its mass. So if you have a stupidly high Frictional Force and a car with a small engine, it cant make enough energy to break the Frictional Force and dosnt go anywhere.

The 0.8 is an average coefficiant for rubber on dry asphalt and is taken from tests done by measuring ayroplane wheels on the runway, plus other places.

You could alter the Ffr = u * N formula and use complex formula for working out u (friction coefficiant) it is just simpler to use an average. Also N can be greater or less then gravity in these cases. It is just easier to use gravity at 9.8m/s then trying to work out the actual real force pushing down on the wheels.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 21:21:55 23/Aug/05

If you are braking properly (as in not locking up), then the mass of the car has a greater effect, because (here comes the science):

- the brakes are doing the work (by which i mean friction), not the tyres (as the tyres shouldn't be slipping significantly if at all)
- so effectively you can remove tyres from the equation so long as no slipping happens
- because of that the mass of the car has no effect on the friction at the brakes because its controlled by the drivers foot and brake setup
- that works fine so long as the cars brakes surface (area and friction coefficient or whatever its called) are matched to its mass
- things like heat generated won't be equal (its not going to be linear) so brakes fade quicker, and smaller cars often have the brakes from the bigger cars

ultimately the mass of a car matters.

If my understanding of the maths presented is correct...

What the maths actually says is that you can only decelerate so fast before the wheels lock, and that this maximum deceleration is the same regardless of the weight of the car. If you try and decelerate faster than this your wheels will lock and you will skid, which will actually increase your stopping distance.

However, unless I am much mistaken, the force that the brakes need to apply to the rotors does depend on weight. The problem facing heavy cars is not that they have a lower maximum deceleration before lock, but that the brakes on a heavy vehicle might not be able to apply enough force to the rotors to reach the maximum deceleration at all. That is why on big cars you need big brakes.

The converse of this is that if your cars brakes already have the power to lock the wheels, then nothing you can do (bigger brakes, lighter car etc) is going to change your braking distance one little bit, except of course, slowing down.

nF, was waiting for you to post.

Are you saying that the mass of the vehicle affects the the rate of decay(?) of the breaks?
or
that the greater the mass of the vehicle the greater work being done to the breaks and in turn generaters more heat which lowers the performance of the breaks over time?

So if the breaks had the same performance regardless of heat being generated the breaking area would be the same and mass wouldn't have an effect?

who cares, speeding rocks and thats that

What the maths actually says is that you can only decelerate so fast before the wheels lock, and that this maximum deceleration is the same regardless of the weight of the car.

The information presented was you can only decelerate so fast due to frictional forces. If you are sliding or not only changes the frictional forces. Something sliding uses kinetic friction while an object that is still uses static friction. I'm pretty sure it only changes the friction coefficiant.
What you say about the amount of energy needed to apply the breaks in order to reach the maximum force is spot on I think. If your system cant apply the maximum power to the breaking system, then you wont reach maximum breaking acceleration.

The converse of this is that if your cars brakes already have the power to lock the wheels, then nothing you can do (bigger brakes, lighter car etc) is going to change your braking distance one little bit, except of course, slowing down.

That is the purpose of ABS breaks. They release the breaks just before the point of lock and reapply them over and over, so you dont skid.


Also on a side note: Since I was talking about the wheels on the road, if the internal break system where engineered differntly so that they gave a co-efficiant of 1 for the wheels on the road wouldnt that negate the information in the break systems? (negleting any distortion due to heat) And assuming that maximum breaking acceleration is achieved for both vehicles?

Yer the question was mass of a car affecting stoping distance and I failed to answer that correctly, however I just want to check my understanding if the above was true.

p.s. allthough I get part marks because I previously said we assume that the wheel to road was the same for both cars, which means you assume that the breaking systems have been engineered to give the friction coefficiant of the wheels on the road are the same. Also both cars reached maximum breaking acceleration. So in that system, mass of the car dosnt matter.. yer?

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 22:43:45 23/Aug/05

Toll, what i meant was there were a few reasons why a heavier car takes longer to stop.

And hUON brought up the bit i didn't mention, that heavier cars need more pressure to be applied to the brakes. At some point thats more than the driver could apply + brake components start to cry when you get a bit too heavy on them.

My point about heat was say that a 3000kg landcruiser has the same (ish) size rotors as my car which is 1250kg (~280mm in mine, i know the landcruisers aren't much bigger) both vented, 4 pots and all that. Don't know the maths of it, but lets just presume that decellerating at 10ms-2 produces twice the amount of heat for the landcruiser. The pads and rotors are going to hit their temp limits much faster (ie the resins start to breakdown, friction decreases and the driver needs to provide more pressure to stop the car at the same rate).

Not likely to be a problem unless you are stopping from 100km/h or something though. But it is still a factor.

I do indeed see what you mean. I guess that you can only have rotors so big in a car as you run out of room?
So part of the reason why an Earth moving truck as huge wheels is to have much larger rotors and apply more power to the breaks and vent the heat better, among other things?

Bigger rotors help for extended braking, cause they dissipate the heat better.

Good size pads with plenty of bite to them probably help more for a 1 off emergency stop.

Your driving down the street doing 60km/h down a 50km/h street. Some random person steps out from behind a bush and walks across the road, talking on their cell phone and totally dosnt notice you. You slam on your breaks, lets assume your really good and you dont skid at all, and break at maximum force. At 60 km/h you need roughly 17.7 meters to stop. At 50km/h you need roughly 12 meters to stop.
So between 60km/h and 50km/h you have about 5.3 meters differance. That could be the differnce between you killing someone or stoping in time.
Sure you could swerve and do other defensive driving, better hope that another car is coming the other way, or that the street pole isnt in the way and so on.

The physics are spot on but didn't take into account the six pot brakes and slotted cross drilled 390mm rotors running on the front of the car with those nice sticky 235 tyres on the front, modified supension and rose jointed arms, etc. Not all things are equal. Cars aren't engineered the same, so your equations aren't indicative and don't encompass all variables in your scenario's. Regardless, you make a fair point and i acknowledge that speed can alter your stopping time.

YOU ARE NOT IMUNE TO ACCIDENTS. It is a statistical chance that you will have an accident, a certain percentage. You might be lucky and go through your whole life not having an accident. You can put this down to random chance combined with driving skills. At the same time you could have an accident. The whole idea of speed limits is that SOMEONE ELSE (teams of people) with the proper knowledge have sat down and worked out that YES as long as people are driving accidents will happen. So it is best to minimise damage, preferably droping a fatality to injury. Teams of people have worked out what kind of force is almost 100% going to kill someone, then find out what reasonable speeds people can do to lower that percentage. It turns out that 50km/h is about as fast as you can go and have a reasonable chance of living if you are struck by something at that speed or lower.

I've had my fair share of accidents, but you know the funny thing about that is they were all caused by other people incorrectly following simple road rules.

Statistical speaking speeding has virtually nothing to do with the majority of accidents caused on the road.

So are you saying that with all your self proclaimed driving skillz you cant accurately judge your speed at any given time?

If you need to be constantly looking at your speedo to work out if you are speeding you need to go straight back to the Dept of Transport and hand your licence back to them; obviously you are incompetent. At worst you need to look at it as often as you check the cars behind you.

I was reiterating a point put across by many driving magazines and websites with relation to the speeding issue, no one can accurately gauge there speed to within the kilometer. They can guess and estimate but you don't accurately know until you look down at the gauge. When you're talking about receiving a fine that could have been the difference between 2 - 3 kilometers / hour over the speed limit then i don't want to even try and estimate my speed. I'd rather know accurately what i'm doing and to keep that speed limit accurately requires either cruise control, a speed alert device or constant checking of your speed which requires looking at your instrument cluster. My driving skills have nothing to do with accurately judging my speed to within the kilometer.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9afd4e13d7da281fca2569de0028b40c?OpenDocument

the australian road toll has been on the decline for manys years ,startin long b4 speed cameras.due to a lot of factors not because someone gets fined $150 for being 15 k over the limit. speed cameras r the easy way out for the state government ,raises revenue and makes it look like something is being done

Cars aren't engineered the same, so your equations aren't indicative and don't encompass all variables in your scenario's.

Yes, we went over that in the above.

So now your car can stop quicker then you can react ;P

Statistical speaking speeding has virtually nothing to do with the majority of accidents caused on the road.

That may be true, but I bet if all the people in the crashes went slower, the damage would be less :p

Why not take it as a test of your skill to never be cought speeding?

On a sidenote:

the six pot brakes

What does 'x pot' actually mean, what is it? I have no idea :/

Here's some interesting figures from the VIC government budget papers.

REVENUE FROM FINES
97/98 $93.5m
98/99 $99m
99/00 $99.5m
00/01 $177.5m
01/02 $182.1m
02/03 $326.6m
03/04 Forecast $427.5m
SOURCE: BUDGET PAPERS

They're making some decent revenue from these devices which is why people are constantly question their accuracy.

Pots refer to the pistons which push down the brake pads onto the disc, the more pistons the more braking force you can apply to the rotors. It enables you to spread the braking force to a greater area / circumference of the discs.

Advantages
1. More evenly distributed pressure on the pads,
2. Better cooling action of the pads, because of more airflow behind the pad's metal support
3. Less stress factor on the caliper itself
4. More clamping action resulting in more braking power due to the presence of more pistons
5. Firmer pedal Strongly recommended for cars that suffer from a spongy pedal,


last edited by wolfieee at 00:13:40 24/Aug/05

I was reiterating a point put across by many driving magazines and websites with relation to the speeding issue, no one can accurately gauge there speed to within the kilometer.

That's right, because driving magazines and websites are unbaised.

They can guess and estimate but you don't accurately know until you look down at the gauge. When you're talking about receiving a fine that could have been the difference between 2 - 3 kilometers / hour over the speed limit then i don't want to even try and estimate my speed. I'd rather know accurately what i'm doing and to keep that speed limit accurately requires either cruise control, a speed alert device or constant checking of your speed which requires looking at your instrument cluster.

Again, if you treat the limit as the maximum limit and drive a few km/h under the limit you don't need to know your exact speed. Of course this assumes that your speedo is actually reading exact figures, and chances are it isn't.


---

Although, the speed alert device is interesting. One of the Universities of England is looking at Sign posts that tell an on-board computer of what the speed limit is. This on-board computer in intern alerts the driver if they are breaching the speed limit, or potential changes in speed limits ahead. When they tested the technology with some driving clubs they all got pissy, because then drivers would have no excuse for speeding and the police could use the data against them if they had an accident.

ok just shutup nerds.

http://krautboy.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/starwars34.jpg

http://www.goodlaughter.com/funnypictures/pics/hope.jpg

I'd hit it. (the girl. *prevents smart ass comment.*)

That's right, because driving magazines and websites are unbaised.

And governments don't ever pull the wool over our eyes?

All it should take is a 1/2 second glance every so often to make sure you are not speeding.

So, at 60k's an hour, you travel 16.6666 (repeating of course) meters per second, so in "half a second" you travel 8.3333 (again, repeating) meters..

At 63k's an hour, you travel 17.5 meters per second, so in "half a second" you travel 8.75 meters - or 875 centimeters vs 833 centimeters..

Making the difference an ASTOUNDING 42 centimeters per half a second. (that's just over a '30cm' rulers length, obviously - I mention it because it's easy to picture how long they are)

So, at 60k's an hour I've travelled 8.333 meters without looking at the road (to check speedo)
But at 63k's an hour I've travelled only 8.75meter with looking at the road (without worrying about speed/checking speedo).

The greater risk here, in my opinion, would be at constantly checking the speedo, as if something occured at the very instant you look down at your speedo - you travel 8.333 meters before even registering there is a hazard on the road --> add reaction time and stopping distance versus not checking speedo for half a second --> 0 meters travelled during "speedo check time" --> reaction + brake time... ...
NOW --> Think about how often you check your speedo - alot, over the course f the journey, add up how many of those "half a seconds" are spent not looking at the road and the possibility of a hazard occuring at one of those moments *right* as you check the speedo, increases I would say, somewhat proportionately.

Now, if "every k over is a killer" as the government wishes us to believe.
Then - for half a second for my eyes to check the speedo at 60k's an hour I've travelled 8.3 meters without my eyes watching the road.

At 61k's an hour I've travelled a mere 8.47 meters in half a second. - that's a whopping 14cm!
So essentially by checking your speedo for half a second you've infact, travelled 8.16 meters further AT the speed limit before realising there is a hazard, than doing 1km over the limit by not spending half a second reading your speedo.

Now, of course, assuming the hazard occurs right AFTER you just checked your speedo, then you're in the same boat as the "non-speedo checker"? correct.
60 vs 63 84 centimeters per second difference.
60 sv 61 28 centimeters per second difference.

Now, assuming you realise there is a hazard, apply brakes etc. at the -exact- same moment going 60 or 61/63 k's an hour, assuming it takes the average driver 1.6 seconds to recognise a hazard and move their foot to the brake/being braking.

That brings us to:
60 vs 63 134 centimeters travelled further at 63 kph.
60 vs 61 44.8 centimeters travelled further at 61 kph.

Then assuming the car takes 44.7 meters to stop (I pulled this from some site, and it seemed like a reasonable figure to hypothetically work with.) <-- the site suggest it takes 33.3m for reaction time, at [edit] fixed reaction time shizzle here [/edit] 16.6m/s this is 2.006 seconds to react? - just as reasonable as my 1.6 seconds I spose - you can re-calculate at 2.006 seconds for differences in distances travelled if you can be f***ed.

And this comes to the point where I CBF figuring out how many meters per second, per second that is of deceleration and continue this further...
But f***, it doesn't work out as a huge difference in how far you travel between 60 and 61kph - whatever distance it does work out to, I wanna know exactly the speed (m/s and km/h) you'd be doing over that extra distance (which is probably a meter or less) I can't imagine it would be a considerable speed at all, probably not even enough to push an adult over.
(that is assuming at 60kph under perfect conditions you stop say 0.0000000001mm from hitting whatever object it is that was a hazard).


That was all completely useless bulls***.
tough luck if you read it all, no refunds on time, don't care about any "uncontrolled variable" bulls***, I was bored and spent too long writing this already to care...

Also, wow not back up for a few more hours >.< *sigh*

last edited by Loki at 00:49:52 24/Aug/05

you're all forgetting the method of kicking the shift rise at full accel + max brake-u, COUNTER!

Another point you may want to consider;

The reason fatalities have been dropping in the last few years can greatly be attributed to the advancements in safety technology within cars. The government maintains that their speed camera's and speeding blitzes are the reasons for the reduction in road fatalities. Many would argue that this is not the case.

With so many advancements in safety technology, eg. crumple zones that absorb energy from impacts, improved structural integrity of vehicles, improvements in seatbelts (pretensioners, load limits, 3 to 4 point harnesses), front / side / rear airbag systems, electronic stability control, traction control, anti-lock brakes with brake assist, electronic brake-force distribution, i mean the list goes on, cars are becoming safer and safer to drive.

If you still think speeding is the number one killer like they claim it is, then you're out of your mind and its too late for you, you've already swallowed and accepted the ideals portrayed in their dogmatic advertising.

just do what the sign says unless you are able to handle the consequences of your actions

last edited by Tuco at 09:46:54 24/Aug/05

Statistical speaking speeding has virtually nothing to do with the majority of accidents caused on the road.

Really? Is this proven anywhere? Surely its a pretty big factor, along with drunk driving.

(Edit: I've been in a couple of car accidents too, none of which have been the result of speeding, so I don't exactly find it hard to believe, but I'd certainly be more inclined to think that in the serious car accidents where this is injury or fatality, speed was a big factor)

last edited by trog at 09:52:15 24/Aug/05

Wolfie is correct. Car makers are reducing the road toll not the government.

I believe the current level of concentration on speed is foolish and does little or nothing to prevent serious accidents.

Have a think: where do speed limits come from? How are the determined?

The answers are obvious: someone makes a judgement call based on a number of factors. A speed limit is always going to err on the side of conservatism. Why? Well you have to set a limit for the lowest common denominator. You can't set a speed limit of 100 which you deem to be safe in a modern, well-engineered and well-maintained car, driven by a capable and aware driver in good conditions. You have to keep in mind whether a truck, or an old beaten-up banger would be safe at this speed, which might be driven by a poor driver in less than optimal conditions.

So in the end you get the following situation: 9km/h over someone's opinion of a safe speed limit makes you an evil speeder who's going to kill people even in your high quality vehicle in your (let's assume) capable hands, whereas 9km/h less speed in a massive truck or a beat-up old POS vehicle piloted by a perhaps inexperienced or simply incapable driver is considered perfectly safe. Bulls***.

Speed cameras are a joke. They save the police time, but for what? I don't feel that they don't address the problem of preventing serious accidents or fatalities. What is really needed to prevent people doing stupid dangerous s*** on the roads is simply increased police presence. These police would catch people hooning, or travelling unsafe speeds in (perhaps unroadworthy) cars, or running lights, or engaging in road rage. These are the things that cause serious accidents, not travelling 10km/h over the limit in a capable vehicle.



last edited by orbitor at 11:48:20 24/Aug/05

last edited by orbitor at 11:51:23 24/Aug/05

Why? Well you have to set a limit for the lowest common denominator.

i wouldnt call asiams or women the lowest common denominator

also i think there are a lot of factors deciding the road speed that not any old idiot can say "oh theres a few corners on this road, make it 60". you need a degree

While agree on the whole principle of more cops on the road, how much would that cost?

last edited by mission at 11:59:18 24/Aug/05

Tuco: of course you do, but it's a judgement call no matter what. There are manyn factors that would be considered in determining speed limits. I'm just trying to say that just because someone has decided that 60km/h is the speed limit, doesn't make that speed safe in all vehicles, and over 60km/h is not necessarily any more unsafe in some vehicles.

mission: I don't know, but isn't in kind of needed? I'm not thinking GTA:San Andreas numbers of traffic cops :P But think back 15 years or so. There were WAY more traffic cops out making sure they're seen on the road (a massive deterrent - who does stupid s*** on the road when you can see a police car in the rearview?) and catching people doing dangerous things or driving dangerous vehicles. I can't see any alternative but increase police presence. Cameras don't work.

And governments don't ever pull the wool over our eyes?

I never said that they didn’t. You don’t need anything else other than simple maths to realise why speeding == dumb.

The reason fatalities have been dropping in the last few years can greatly be attributed to the advancements in safety technology within cars.

Of course this isn’t any reason to remove policing of the traffic act.

With so many advancements in safety technology, … blah blah blah … i mean the list goes on, cars are becoming safer and safer to drive.

Is this an attempt of leading an argument to increasing speed limits?

Trog: it is actually proven, all local state governments have the statistics available to the public regarding road fatalities and accidents.

Take NSW 2003 for example, these are stats taken directly from a PDF site on their website and it's interesting to note the statistics.

- In NSW at least 19% of motor vehicle occupants killed were not wear seatbelts.
- Alcohol was a contributing factor in 39% of fatal accidents

SA 2003 - sourced from the SA transport site

- In SA 48% of country road fatalities were failure to wear a seatbelt
- In SA 37% of metropolitan road fatalties were because of failure to wear a seatbelt
- In SA 13% of fatal accidents were attributed to speed

The trends are very similar in other states. Failure to comply with a speed limit are not the MAJOR CAUSE of accidents. None of these sites give detailed examples case by case only baseline statistics, yes i've left information out and yes i'm biased in my views but the statistics will back me up and they do show that there are factors out there contributing to road fatalities far worse than speeding which aren't being addressed quite the same way speeding is....

Just because you can bring out statistics doesnt mean you have proven a point

Right! So real life data means nothing...you took the red pill too many times.

74% of all statistics are made up......

So why should we beleive that?

last edited by mission at 14:25:10 24/Aug/05

Is this an attempt of leading an argument to increasing speed limits?

You're missing the point, it's a drawn contrast between safety technology and how its impacting the reduction in road fatalities regardless of how accidents are caused.

Lies, damn lies and then there statstics....

also i think there are a lot of factors deciding the road speed that not any old idiot can say "oh theres a few corners on this road, make it 60". you need a degree

Makes me wonder why Mt Nebo, a two-way road with blind corners and steep ascents and descents is 80km, but a perfectly straight stretch of the Gateway Arterial with freshly laid bitumen is 80 also. Funniest part is that it increases to 100km when the resurfaced road turns into s***ty patchwork.

Theyre just trying to protect the nice shiny road so when the general pubilc says 'the roads and s***' they can say 'but the gateway...'

Wouldnt want to accident-up the freshly laid bitumen!!

Makes me wonder why Mt Nebo, a two-way road with blind corners and steep ascents and descents is 80km, but a perfectly straight stretch of the Gateway Arterial with freshly laid bitumen is 80 also.

Perhaps cause Gateway frequently has high cross winds that can move cars sideways flip cars travelling at speed.
I learnt this the hard way once in a lowered XD Fairmont some years ago...

I didn't flip but when your vehicle lifts an moves a few feet sideways into the opposite lane of traffic at 140 you soon rethink what your doing.

Fortunately there was no-one around me (which was why I was fanging it) for a few km's in any direction

Always been a bit more considerate of crosswinds since then

You're missing the point, it's a drawn contrast between safety technology and how its impacting the reduction in road fatalities regardless of how accidents are caused.

No, I wanted to know where your argument goes from there.

My point is speeding is still touted as the number one reason of road fatalities when that isn't the case. I'm making an objection to a system which isn't working, yet keeps expanding and generating huge revenue while the major reasons and issues of road fatalities are ignored or are taking a back seat to the speeding agenda. My point is the system needs attention and instead of putting revenue back into more camera's it could be better spent elsewhere on educating drivers of the future.

i really don't get this "i lub to speed" thing..

what does it give to you tosser speeders?

does it make you high? heart pumping? a power thing-E?

whatever it is, i don't get it..

why don't you speeding tossers take up a hobbie that doesn't give you a chance to kill yourself and other peaple in the process..

if you speed and lose control there is a chance that you and/or someone else may die or end up in a wheel chair/bed ridden for life..

if you don't care about killing yourself, then fine, kill yourself, but do it without harming anyone else in the process.. please..

Thats why we take it too the track....

what does a track got to do with speeding on the public road system?

if you all want to have a big read about the gatso radar system using the doppler effect histogram method for speed detection in use in the speed camera vech's around queeensland..

click here --> http://www.policespeedcameras.info/foi.html

I refer to the road casualty statistics quoted before.

~40% of casualties attributed to failure to wear a seatbelt
~40% of casualties attributed to drink driving
~15% of casualties attributed to speed
~5% of casualties attributed to other causes (presumably a fair chunk of these are driver fatigue)

This means that speeding is the third largest cause of road casualties in the Australia. Moreover, it causes at least three times as many casualties as the next most common cause, and at least tens of times more casualties than some of the other driver behaviours that have been thrown up as causes for accidents.

Your point seemed to be that police should spend their time and money on the things that cause most of the crashes. Well, according to your own statistics that would be seatbelts, drink driving and speed. Suprise, suprise, they do. Well drink driving and speed anyway. Since you will ask why not seatbelts then? I guess the answer is, How do you catch people not wearing seatbelts. Most people put them on whenever a cop comes anywhere near. Seems that police rely on education alone for this one.

Which government is stating that the majority of accidents are caused by speeding?

The Queensland government states that the majority of accidents are caused by Fatigue, DUI and then speeding.

Road saftey strategy

Speeding campaign website

Action Plan

and even the speed campaign summary

I don't think that the every K is a killer campaign ever said that speeding is the leading causes of fatalities on the road today, only one of them.

Other states might have claimed other things but I don't live there, so I don't know. Although I didn't exactly look too hard, the only sites that seem to be talking about governments stating that the majority of accidents where caused by speeding where car sites. The two I looked at had no supporting evidence, including a link to a government site that made such claims.

Thats why we take it too the track....

Obviously you don't all take it to the track, otherwise speed cameras wouldn't make any revenue.

sorry to double post, but let me finish loki's maths from the page before.

According to loki,

If checking the speedo takes 1/2 second, then if an unexpected event occurs while you are checking your speedo, then your stopping time will be (time to finish checking speedo) + (reaction time) + (stopping time).

At 60km/h this could add 8.33m to your stopping distance. He is rights so far.

He then says that if you never check your speedo, and your speed is therefore accidentally say 63km/h, your stopping distance will perhaps be less because your stopping time will be (reaction time) + (stopping time) only.

Let us work this out.

Remember that the shortest stopping distance possible is governed by a constant maximum deceleration that is approx -100m/s^2 (worked out from razor's figures)

The distance (s) taken to change from one speed (u), to another speed (v) at a constant acceleration (a) is given by the formula u^2 = v^2 - 2as. Since the new speed (v) is going to be 0 (we are stopping after all), and a = -100, then the formula for working out stopping distances from a given speed is

s = (u^2)/200

Reaction time is assumed to be 2s.

So, comparing 60km/h to 63km/h, assuming that both drivers are watching the road (ie no speedo check)

60km/h
reaction distance = 33.33m (ie 60km/h = 16.67m/s = 33.33m/2sec)

braking distance = (60^2)/200 = 3600/200 = 18m

total distance = 51.33m


63km/h
reaction distance = 35m

braking distance = (63^2)/200 = 3969/200 = 19.845m

total distance = 54.845m

Therefore at 63km/h, stopping distance is increased by 3.5m


If we now go back to the original hypothesis that the time (and thus distance) taken to check the speedo increases your stopping distance by more than being just a little over the speed limit.

It turns out that loki is somewhat right. If the event occurs right at the beginning of the half second it takes you to check your speedo, then your stopping distance is 5m more than stopping from 63km/h. However, if the event occurs some distance into the speedo check, the stopping distance from 60km/h gets closer to the stopping distance from 63km/h. If the unexpected event occurs 3/5 way through the speedo check, the stopping distance from 63 or from 60 are the same, and if it occurs later than this, you actually pull up faster from 60km/h even though you have to complete the speedo check before reacting.

So for the first 3/5 of a half second speedo check, that is for the first 1/3 of a second of a speedo check, the driver doing 60km/h and checking his speedo is actually more dangerous than the driver not checking his speedo and doing 63km/h.

But, as loki suggests, we need to consider how often a driver checks his speedo. As a purely made up guess, lets say once every 30 sec. The driver who doesn't check his speedo and therefore accidentally travels at 63km/h can proudly claim to be safer for 1/3 sec in every 30 sec, or for 1.1% of his journey. Conversely the driver who checks his speedo once every 30 sec can claim to be safer for 29 2/3 sec every 30 sec, or for 98.9% of his journey.

Who's really the safer driver loki?

I agree with typo, it seems no govt is claiming that speeding is the leading cause of either accidents or fatalities. However, as typo notes, the QLD govt claims speeding as the third most common contributing factor to road accidents, while other governments (SA and NSW, in wolfieee's post) list speeding as the third most common cause of road deaths (not just accidents). In all cases, the other factors are fatigue, dui and seatbelts. Other causes (poor driver behviour etc) simply do not cause either enough accidents or fatalities for them to rate a mention. This justifies the authorities in concentrating on speeding provided they also concentrate on the other three major factors, which they do. At least to the extent that it is possible. As yet speed and dui are far easier to detect, and so are the ones that most enforcement is aimed at, but the other two are well covered by education campaigns and so forth.

last edited by hUON at 00:32:30 25/Aug/05

In answer to your question loki, how much further does it take to stop at 61km/h compared to 60km/h, the answer is 1.2m. As for how fast are you travelling at the point where you would have stopped if you were travelling at 60km/h, you use the same formula from before, u^2 = v^2 - 2as, where a = -100, u = 61km/h and s = actuall braking distance.

Work out s = (total stopping distance from 60km/h) - (reaction time at 61km/h) = 17.444m.

Work it out and you find that the speed of the driver at 61km/h is still 15.25 km/h at the point where the driver at 60km/h stopped.

In other words, if you are doing 61km/h, then when you reach the point where a car at 60km/h would have stopped, you are still travelling at 15.25km/H (25% of original speed) and have 1.2m to go before you stop.

Any you loki, theorised that this wouldn't even be enough to knock over an adult. ahahahahahah

~40% of casualties attributed to failure to wear a seatbelt
~40% of casualties attributed to drink driving
~15% of casualties attributed to speed
~5% of casualties attributed to other causes (presumably a fair chunk of these are driver fatigue)

I wonder how many of those drink driving casualties were from drunks speeding...which part do they come under??

I was just about to say that tanaka :( I still don't get what you pro-speeding twats are arguinf about? You have a problem with speed limits or cameras? If the problem is with the limits, go see your MP and do something stop f***ing whinging here. If the problem is with the cameras, then don't f***ing speed. Take some responsiblity for your own actions.

hUON: I didn't complete the math to work out whether or not someone would be knocked over or not, I took a guess since even if it is 15kph as you suggest, it's only 15kph at that point for less than a second.

I wasn't trying to prove 63 is safer than 60, I already noted that in my post that : 60 vs 63 = 134 centimeters travelled further at 63 kph.

I was providing some basic math as to some people and their belief in which is.

You could be good at math but you're a bit retarded at jumping to conclusions to yell "hahahaha i'm right you're wrong el oh el oh el"

But thanks for completing the mathematical evidence to show the people arguing the *but I spend more time with my eyes on the speedo* debate.

i really don't get this "i lub to speed" thing..

what does it give to you tosser speeders?

does it make you high? heart pumping? a power thing-E?

I see plenty of tradesmen/businessmen who speed way over the limit. I assume this is because they are late for a meeting/travelling to another worksite etc.

why don't you speeding tossers take up a hobbie that doesn't give you a chance to kill yourself and other peaple in the process..

This is why wolfieee referred to trackdays, where you can go around a track at your own pace in a safe environment.

last edited by tominator at 10:14:19 25/Aug/05

sorry loki, bit late, bit drunk, and lost in a physics problem. Guess i just got caught up in the excitement. :)

what does a track got to do with speeding on the public road system?

It means i can take my car to a track, flog the f*** out it and speed while not endangering the public.

And if you analyse those statistics SPEEDING, NO SEATBELTS, DRUNKEN DRIVING ARE ONLY CONTRIBUTING FACTOR in the fatalities, the other half of the story is that someone made a mistake while driving on the road and died because of that mistake. Had they not made the mistake in the first place there may not have been a fatality, regardless of how fast he may have been going. So half the problem again is the driver in charge of the vehicle.

Please forgive the scattered lack of information in this post, (I have done a search but have been un-fruitfull) but I saw a segment a couple of years ago about a country in Europe that invests alot of money and national research on road safety. More specifically they were trialing a strip of road that had been fitted with plastic type rivet things that when driven over on the correct speed would play classical tunes. If hit at an inapropriate speed it would create a load untolerable noise.
Some people are thinking, but most arent willing to invest the time and money.