60kph over = Instant jail

[XR06T]

the same bit of road can have different safe limits for different times of the day.

i have been pinged for 70kph+ over the limit, purely for revenue raising, on the long straight freeway at 4am with noone else on the road.

you know how i know it was revenue raising? the copper told me.

it wasn't in a school zone when someones kids were crossing the road without looking.
it was the middle of the night.

the copper pulled me over, we had a chat, he told me he has to give me the ticket, no arguement from me.. thats his job.

no mention of this being the most dangerous thing EVER and i should be spending the weekend in the slammer. no yelling.

it was as if i was asking him for directions

Originally Posted by au3 chaser

I just thought that if an idiot did 100kph through a school zone (where my daughter goes to school), 110, psat the front of my house (where my daughter plays), 120 past the shops where I shop with my family, or 160/170kph on the highway where I drive with my family in the car... you wouldn't want that idiot locked up, not only to not hurt him/her self, but to PREVENT hurting/killing anyone else, and/or damaging anyone elses property....

no one is saying that that isn't stupid, time and place..

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

Or you could throw out the rulebook, and bring back good old fashioned common sence....... I think the reason we have so many trivial laws lateley is a lot of people have forgotten what common sence is.......I dare say because nobody has a situation available to them anymore where they can practice the use of common sence, because were all told what we can and cant do instead.

here here..

[gs1973]

Originally Posted by FORD3V

Insults when you cant come up with a response.

Who did you say was "rabbiting with chidish dribble"??????

Go back to the start of this thread and read what it's about you poor troubled moron. The question is should you be thrown in jail for doing 60 km/h over the speed limit. Well that all depends on the time and conditions doesn't it? People like you amuse me. You seem to have some pretty unrealistic ideals don't you? I feel for your missus if you have one. Talk about going from one extreme to the next, Take your avatar for example. You obviously feel the need to tell us all how you had to squeeze 300kw out of what could only be described as a road car.. Why did you bother? Because if you built it to race you would go home with your tail between your legs. Secondly your location is drinking a pint of guiness is it? That's nice and responsible isn't it? Have we done a bit of drink driving in our time too? GET A LIFE, and realise you will never make politic's to change any rules because you are a moron.

[Wokkas]

Originally Posted by troppo

All you nee to know is: SPEED DOES NOT KILL, nor does it cause accidents.

Good one. I'll just forward that onto the FIA and CAMS, and tell them, look boys, get rid of yellows flags in races- drivers don't need to slow down during times of caution, because speed is safe. Troppo said so.

[Xitdxr]

You guys have flipped your lids. did you lot work for the bracks government or something? I have got a small car, and just passing a semi in 5th gear i could hit 150 - 160 from 100. Here's a scary thought, my current car is as stable at 160 as my old XR8 (EF) was at 100. Does it give me the right to do that speed....no it doesnt, but if the weather and the circumstances at the time allow for it i will do it everytime. I know a very wise ex cop, and his advice to me before i even had my license was:" Only Drive as Fast as you can see and to conditions you are in".

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by Wokkas

Good one. I'll just forward that onto the FIA and CAMS, and tell them, look boys, get rid of yellows flags in races- drivers don't need to slow down during times of caution, because speed is safe. Troppo said so.

Thats a different story....... I agree with the post you are contradicting....... Speed does not cause accidents..

What does cause accidents is not paying attention, unexpected sudden happenings, or the inability to stop in time.

The reason a yellow flag is out is because the conditions on the track have changed. When your racing, its fairly fair to assume that you have a clear track ahead of you and that the other drivers know what thier doing, meaning your pretty safe driving to you and your cars ability....... the yellow flag tells people the track is obscured, and that you now have altered conditions, the slower speed gives officials more time to clear the track aswell as gives a larger allowance for reaction time which is often needed in hazardous conditions, you are no longer driving to the ability of your car and experiance, but to the conditions of the track....... if there were no yellow flags, cars would still be racing around the hazzard - this is more dangerous for the officials, as cars would sit side by side instead of single file, head blind around corners (there could be someone standing in the middle of the track) and they dont get the reaction time that they need to get out the way.

This by no means means that speed causes crashes so theres no point relating the two

[troppo]

Originally Posted by Wokkas

Good one. I'll just forward that onto the FIA and CAMS, and tell them, look boys, get rid of yellows flags in races- drivers don't need to slow down during times of caution, because speed is safe. Troppo said so.

LOL been fished much? It was your comment on pg 1 that inspired me to post instead of ignoring the usual handful of idiots parroting what Harold Scruby told them.

Originally Posted by Wokkas

We all do it, but not all of us are arrogant enough to try and justify it.

Instead, you're arrogant enough to bag anyone else for doing what you did. Oh but you now recognise that what you did was stupid and dangerous, that makes it alright then. Maybe these people might live long enough to make the same realisation...we both did. Does that make you a hypocrite as well as arrogant?

So, you've quoted me out of context, and completely missed the point as shown by your comment. Well done. Now quote the bits where you think I'm wrong and I'll argue the point with you. As it is, you haven't actually made one, just an attempt at sarcasm.

Speed kills does it? What speed? Go on, put a figure on it. No? Then we can agree there is no known speed at which the human body disintegrates or spontaneously combusts? I rest my case.

If you don't agree, best you get FAI and CAMS to ban racing altogether...tell em I said so. In fact walking involves speed...get that banned too. All speed is bad or none, anything less would be hypoctrical.

[FORD3V]

Originally Posted by gs1973

Go back to the start of this thread and read what it's about you poor troubled moron. The question is should you be thrown in jail for doing 60 km/h over the speed limit. Well that all depends on the time and conditions doesn't it? People like you amuse me. You seem to have some pretty unrealistic ideals don't you? I feel for your missus if you have one. Talk about going from one extreme to the next, Take your avatar for example. You obviously feel the need to tell us all how you had to squeeze 300kw out of what could only be described as a road car.. Why did you bother? Because if you built it to race you would go home with your tail between your legs. Secondly your location is drinking a pint of guiness is it? That's nice and responsible isn't it? Have we done a bit of drink driving in our time too? GET A LIFE, and realise you will never make politic's to change any rules because you are a moron.

I have saved my response to this rant for PM :baby bott

It seems someone is in the sad process of a mid-life crisis :

[Outbackjack]

C'mon guys, be nice.... this has been a interesting read. There have been some mis-understandings and the topic has gone a little astray.... But all in all it has been a good read. Attack the content, not the person.

[FORD3V]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

no I wouldnt, because the potholes would shake the hell out of the car, and being a 1970 datsun would probably fall appart, and it would be a newsance driving over them at any more than 10kph......

Whats the point???

If people like you had your way we wouldnt have speed limits,everyone would make there own personal judgement on the appropriate speed to be doing.

The end result would be people like you travelling at 200kph on public roads because you felt it was safe to do so and in your opinion speed doesnt cause or effect the seriousness of an accident.

Do you think the annual road toll would go up?????

Jail isnt the answer,common sense is.

[krt10]

i think that in places like residential areas it would be a good rule

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by FORD3V

If people like you had your way we wouldnt have speed limits,everyone would make there own personal judgement on the appropriate speed to be doing.

The end result would be people like you travelling at 200kph on public roads because you felt it was safe to do so and in your opinion speed doesnt cause or effect the seriousness of an accident.

Do you think the annual road toll would go up?????

Jail isnt the answer,common sense is.

Its horses for courses. There places in Australia where 200kph in the rite vehicle is perfectly safe.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

C'mon guys, be nice.... this has been a interesting read. There have been some mis-understandings and the topic has gone a little astray.... But all in all it has been a good read. Attack the content, not the person.

Always hard for some to stay on topic and not go personal, but i think most replies are not intended as personal but perhaps could have been worded better thus resulting in a downhill slide.

Back on topic, should some one be jailed for 60+ over, simply a lot of variables but to add to the mix here's some more info to consider who is more a risk on our roads.

In my dream state yesterday, and in dreaming of travelling at 160 kph, i encountered the following nightmares, a taxi that over took not once but twice by going over double white lines ( which indicated a country T section or crossover ahead, and in such went past these intersections on the wrong side of the road, A ute travelling with an unsecured load, that was loosing bits and peices all over the road with the driver un awares or not caring, a person who over took a semi on a blind bend, lucky no oncoming traffic, some one who weaving all over the road, either drunk or tired, and to comlete the nightmare, a crap box with rear bumper hanging down, exhaust nearly on the ground, bald rear tyres ( that i seen ) and in a general state of repair that a wreckers yard should have been where it rested.

Now the good news is all of these people were doing 110KPH.

[The Mighty Red]

I used to rev head everywhere I went until i had kids .......SLOW DOWN IN TOWN is my motto....I still speed often on roads like the bruce highway etc and pay the fines and cop the demerit points accordingly ......

People who are flying around back streets , school zones and built up area's in general are far more dangerous and should be hit with double or triple everything IMO.

[Wokkas]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

the slower speed gives a larger allowance for reaction time

Thank you very much.

[Wokkas]

Originally Posted by troppo

LOL been fished much? It was your comment on pg 1 that inspired me to post instead of ignoring the usual handful of idiots parroting what Harold Scruby told them.

Instead, you're arrogant enough to bag anyone else for doing what you did. Oh but you now recognise that what you did was stupid and dangerous, that makes it alright then. Maybe these people might live long enough to make the same realisation...we both did. Does that make you a hypocrite as well as arrogant?

So, you've quoted me out of context, and completely missed the point as shown by your comment. Well done. Now quote the bits where you think I'm wrong and I'll argue the point with you. As it is, you haven't actually made one, just an attempt at sarcasm.

Speed kills does it? What speed? Go on, put a figure on it. No? Then we can agree there is no known speed at which the human body disintegrates or spontaneously combusts? I rest my case.

If you don't agree, best you get FAI and CAMS to ban racing altogether...tell em I said so. In fact walking involves speed...get that banned too. All speed is bad or none, anything less would be hypoctrical.

Mate, by me saying that "we all do it" ("do" being present tense) is showing that I am not a hypocrite or arrogant. However, like everyone else who speeds on a public road (bar some circumstances like overtaking at times) it does make me a . I'll be the first to admit that. And if/when I get caught, I'm man enough to accept the consequenses for my actions.

Do I think gaol time should be the consequence? No, I don't. Nor have I ever said it should. Prison is for criminals in my opinion. Non the less, 60ks over the limit is a lot, especially in a built up area, and anyone who tries to argue it as being safe, IN MY OPINION is wrong. Ok, if I do 200ks down an open country road in my XR8 that's prepped for the race track track, it's obviously going to be safer than someone in an old EA bomb with 300,000kms on the clock that hasn't had a wheel alignment in 5 years. Should we set different limits for different cars, or for people on different budgets? That would be arrogant!

Now you're putting forward the arguement of difining what speed is. No, speed doesn't kill, not if "speed" is doing 50 in a 50 zone. Lets look at a car doing 110ks on the highway hitting a kangaroo, then compare it to the results of a car doing 170ks hitting a roo. Obviously no ones going to get hurt unless something happens. But when something does happen, the results speak for themselves.

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by FORD3V

If people like you had your way we wouldnt have speed limits,everyone would make there own personal judgement on the appropriate speed to be doing.

The end result would be people like you travelling at 200kph on public roads because you felt it was safe to do so and in your opinion speed doesnt cause or effect the seriousness of an accident.

Do you think the annual road toll would go up?????

Jail isnt the answer,common sense is.

No, if people like ME had their way, there would be much more appropriate speed limits on open roads, and electronic signing that allows the limits to be appropriateley to the time, conditions, and traffic.

School areas for example would still be slow, multilane freeways that are busy during the day would have speed increased significantly outside peak hours, I would see the old 60kph (or maybe even 70) back for suburban streets in place of the new 40s and 50s, and I would see speed limits entireley abololished for inter town/city/state open roads that have lengthy stretches of straight road with minimal or no intersections.

I would get rid of undercover revenue raisers, and diss-alow hiding behind bushes and other sneaky tactics..
I would use speed camera AHEAD signs, instead of the "Youve just been caught" signs that sit 50meters after the camera.......

Then I would get you and all your friends, line you up, and take your liscences off you and tell you to catch the bus - because you all seem to enjoy being told what to do.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by Wokkas

Mate, by me saying that "we all do it" ("do" being present tense) is showing that I am not a hypocrite or arrogant. However, like everyone else who speeds on a public road (bar some circumstances like overtaking at times) it does make me a . I'll be the first to admit that. And if/when I get caught, I'm man enough to accept the consequenses for my actions.

Do I think gaol time should be the consequence? No, I don't. Nor have I ever said it should. Prison is for criminals in my opinion. Non the less, 60ks over the limit is a lot, especially in a built up area, and anyone who tries to argue it as being safe, IN MY OPINION is wrong. Ok, if I do 200ks down an open country road in my XR8 that's prepped for the race track track, it's obviously going to be safer than someone in an old EA bomb with 300,000kms on the clock that hasn't had a wheel alignment in 5 years. Should we set different limits for different cars, or for people on different budgets? That would be arrogant!

Now you're putting forward the arguement of difining what speed is. No, speed doesn't kill, not if "speed" is doing 50 in a 50 zone. Lets look at a car doing 110ks on the highway hitting a kangaroo, then compare it to the results of a car doing 170ks hitting a roo. Obviously no ones going to get hurt unless something happens. But when something does happen, the results speak for themselves.

I've been down at the pub being happy for the last couple of hours. This post makes me happier
Why? Because we agree on some principles.

No argument at all on paragraph 1

Likewise for paragraph 2. I never suggested different limits for different people/vehicles, I suggested that what is 'safe' varies a great deal from driver to driver and vehicle to vehicle for any give road in any given conditions.

Paragraph 3 actually demonstrates my point. You first need to define what speed is to apply it to any given situation. Further, speed being what it is, is nothing more than a factor in the severity of an accident, should one occur.

The actual cause of accidents however, always come down to one of 3 things.
1. Driving beyond the capabilities of the driver. This includes drink driving, fatigue, poor ability to judge fatigue, poor reactions, poor ability to judge the speed of oncoming traffic, inexperience and a whole range of other driver errors.
2. Driving beyond the capabilities of the vehicle. This includes poor maintainance, dodgy tyres, poor shocks etc
3. Driving beyond the ambient conditions. The weather is pretty self-explanatory.

Show me a case of excessive speed causing an accident and I'll point to one of those 3 instead.

Also it's no different to what you did by taking my blanket statement and applying it to a situation with defined parameters. The key words being "when something does happen" and my point being, "speed alone is not that something."

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by Wokkas

Thank you very much.

But please dont think that I was in support of your argument.

if the speed you were traveling at comes into play to determine how serious the crash was, then there was already something else going wrong.

unless the car or tyres physicaly cannot handle the speed, there is no reason the car would crash if left un-interupted, no matter how fast its going.
Its only when you throw in human error, eg-someone not looking before you pull out.......

If they looked first, you wouldnt need extra reaction time.....

Now obviously we need to factor these things in so adjust our speed accordingly, but in all seriousness, how far ahead do we plan before it gets rediculous, we could keep reducing speed all the way down to 1kph just to accomodate all the "what if's" and then still be hit by someone going in the other dierection at an intersection.

as such - Speed doesnt kill people, people kill people.

*EDIT* - Everything I realy wanted to say was summed up quite niceley in the post above already, I shouldve just waited a minute or 2!!

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by FORD3V

If people like you had your way we wouldnt have speed limits,everyone would make there own personal judgement on the appropriate speed to be doing.

The end result would be people like you travelling at 200kph on public roads because you felt it was safe to do so and in your opinion speed doesnt cause or effect the seriousness of an accident.

Do you think the annual road toll would go up?????

Jail isnt the answer,common sense is.

Oh, and I didnt answer the question...

No, If people like me had thier way, the road toll would go down, and the number of road-rage related incidence would significantly be reduced, people wouldnt hate the cops so much and would have more money in thier pocket, we'd all concentrate more on the road and less on our speedo, meaning less crashes overall.

And also, I never said speed doesnt affect the seriousness of a crash, I actualy made several points to the contrary. I did however say speed does not cause accidents.

I think you need to get your head read. :

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by DOC

Always hard for some to stay on topic and not go personal, but i think most replies are not intended as personal but perhaps could have been worded better thus resulting in a downhill slide.

Back on topic, should some one be jailed for 60+ over, simply a lot of variables but to add to the mix here's some more info to consider who is more a risk on our roads.

In my dream state yesterday, and in dreaming of travelling at 160 kph, i encountered the following nightmares, a taxi that over took not once but twice by going over double white lines ( which indicated a country T section or crossover ahead, and in such went past these intersections on the wrong side of the road, A ute travelling with an unsecured load, that was loosing bits and peices all over the road with the driver un awares or not caring, a person who over took a semi on a blind bend, lucky no oncoming traffic, some one who weaving all over the road, either drunk or tired, and to comlete the nightmare, a crap box with rear bumper hanging down, exhaust nearly on the ground, bald rear tyres ( that i seen ) and in a general state of repair that a wreckers yard should have been where it rested.

Now the good news is all of these people were doing 110KPH.

Of course when I say that 200kph on some roads is perfectly safe, these are roads where there is absolutely no chance of seeing a taxi... In parts of WA and the NT you can drive for hours at a time and not another single vehicle... These are the roads that are capable of supporting speeds faster than 130kph and certainly faster than 110kph.

We here in Australia have been ripped of and lied to for years now. We have had ineficient roads built and then revenue positive limits put on them. Imagine how much better our road system would be if the $$ gathered from fuel and rego etc was actually spent on our roads. A good example would be the roads in the NT. Funded by the feds. At the moment they are easily capable of supporting high speed commuting. But since there has been a 130kph limit put on them, the NT gov has diverted a proportionate amout of $$ from road maintenance to "other" area's.... Darwin water front appartments seems to fit.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

We here in Australia have been ripped of and lied to for years now. We have had ineficient roads built and then revenue positive limits put on them. Imagine how much better our road system would be if the $$ gathered from fuel and rego etc was actually spent on our roads.

+1

It would be so much more refreshing to see a government have the balls to stand up and do something about it for a change.

Speed is not the biggest killer on our roads by a long shot. In fact speed doesn't kill at all although it is acknowledged as a contributing factor in about 8% of road deaths.

Even standing still, you are moving at over 1000kph as the world spins on it's axis. Has anyone come close to dying from that yet?

If speed kills, Craig Lownes would have died 20 years ago. He's been speeding since he was wet behind the ears!

In a country that is so big and requires large distances to be travelled at what are very low speeds compared to other countries standards, the biggest killer is fatigue. People get bored at the wheel when in the middle of nowhere while sitting at 100kph and fall asleep!

It will be interesting to see what happens in the NT over the next few years. I wouldn't be suprised if the road toll in the NT actually went up as a result of dropping the speed limit on the open roads to just 130kph.

Please don't get me wrong though. I am talking about speed that is appropriate for the conditions.

I am all for throwing the book at those who flout the speed limits in built up areas in towns and large cities, but I feel that the open road in rural areas is another kettle of fish altogether.

I would like to see a road system and speed limits like those seen in Europe made available here. After all, our cars today are safer than ever and were made to travel these speeds in the hands of a competent operator.

This would require:

*A better licencing system that actually teaches a person to handle a car instead of just how to park a car, steer a car in a straight line at speeds under 60kph and pass a written test.

*World class roads systems rather than the goat tracks that pass for roads once you are 50klm put of a capital city in Aus.


Advantages:

You get where you are going quicker before fatigue sets in.
You concentrate a lot more at higher speeds. You wouldn't try to apply your lipstick, use your cordless shaver or eat breakfast behind the wheel at 180kph. All of your mental powers are being applied to concentrating on the road ahead.

Disadvantages:

Lost revenue, which after all, is what the speed limit system in Australia is all about.

The knob head factor. Unfortunately they are everywhere.

[Rev28K]

+2

Why try and improve driving standards when you can lower or enforce arcane speed limits? There are a lot of witless drivers out there that seem to be at their limits or lapse into a comatose state driving a car at the speed limit (and as for cornering, reading road conditions, anticipating what is coming up, keeping left unless overtaking, etc – forget it). What is the point of giving people response times if the first time they have to perform an emergency braking (or God forbid a swerve and recover) maneuver is the one time that it becomes a life and death situation.

Any government that states that a key road safety policy is strictly enforced speed limits rather than education and higher vehicle standards has blood on their hands. It’s sad because there are times when I feel safer on a race track than I do on the roads.

I’ve spent many years and many dollars improving both my car and my driving and club sprints have been a big part of it (compare that to the average person that just gets a license then does nothing to actively improve their driving standards over their lifetime). Peter Bachelor wants to “make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving”, I’d rather see him try and lift driving standards.

[Hunter]

In general people are too stupid to learn how to drive properly, that and poor quality roads/general safety is why we have speed limits...

[Rev28K]

The problem with making something idiot-proof is that someone always comes along and invents a better idiot.

Driving standards still need to improve. Car safety technology and technology has improved in leaps and bounds over the years why can’t the drivers abilities improve, even if it's only incrementally ?

p.s. LAughed at the earlier comment about a 1970 Datsun on bald tyres on a bumpy road in the wet – sounds like what my track car on slicks will be like at Calder going in to turn 1.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

It will be interesting to see what happens in the NT over the next few years. I wouldn't be suprised if the road toll in the NT actually went up as a result of dropping the speed limit on the open roads to just 130kph.

FWIW, the NT road toll currently stands at 26, compared to 18 for the same time last year before the introduction of limits.

[red_hotxr6]

How about instead of all the excuses, people just follow the road rules, that way you know that you a road user are doing the right thing, lawfully and if you and other road users did the same thing, hey we all arrive at our destination safely and without getting pulled up by the police. I may only have had my licence for a WHOLE 4 years but i have never lost 1 point off of it, and i intend to keep it that way.I have been involved in one serious accident and that was due not only to a stupid decision from the other driver but because she thought that by speeding she could beat me through the lights, thank god me or my daughter were not hurt. Right now as i type this another driver has just been caught speeding last night doing 120kph in a 60 zone, and a motor cyclist caught doing 131kph an hour, why, what for, what reason is there for speeding, both these guys are lucky no one was hurt.By the way both rider and driver have had there licenses cancelled.

[manny_papa]

Originally Posted by red_hotxr6

How about instead of all the excuses, people just follow the road rules, that way you know that you a road user are doing the right thing, lawfully and if you and other road users did the same thing, hey we all arrive at our destination safely and without getting pulled up by the police. I may only have had my licence for a WHOLE 4 years but i have never lost 1 point off of it, and i intend to keep it that way.I have been involved in one serious accident and that was due not only to a stupid decision from the other driver but because she thought that by speeding she could beat me through the lights, thank god me or my daughter were not hurt. Right now as i type this another driver has just been caught speeding last night doing 120kph in a 60 zone, and a motor cyclist caught doing 131kph an hour, why, what for, what reason is there for speeding, both these guys are lucky no one was hurt.By the way both rider and driver have had there licenses cancelled.

well said

[FORD3V]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

No, if people like ME had their way, there would be much more appropriate speed limits on open roads, and electronic signing that allows the limits to be appropriateley to the time, conditions, and traffic.

School areas for example would still be slow, multilane freeways that are busy during the day would have speed increased significantly outside peak hours, I would see the old 60kph (or maybe even 70) back for suburban streets in place of the new 40s and 50s, and I would see speed limits entireley abololished for inter town/city/state open roads that have lengthy stretches of straight road with minimal or no intersections.

I would get rid of undercover revenue raisers, and diss-alow hiding behind bushes and other sneaky tactics..
I would use speed camera AHEAD signs, instead of the "Youve just been caught" signs that sit 50meters after the camera.......

Then I would get you and all your friends, line you up, and take your liscences off you and tell you to catch the bus - because you all seem to enjoy being told what to do.

The second paragraph clearly states your mentality,abolishing speed limits on lengthy streches of road,this may be safe enough in a high powered modern car,although it would increase your chances of dieing were you to crash.

The BA that I recently bought is the only car that I have owned that I would feel safe enough to do this in,all my previous cars have been pre 1980's fords's,holdens etc,poor handling,fogged up windows,terrible brakes,generaly handle's like a boat,especially at high speed.

Car's like my old one's that wernt the most powerful cars could barely go over 100kph let alone safely,not everyone has or can afford a car that you can cruise along at 150kph.

If you were stuck behind such a car on a road without speed limits it would be more likely to increase your anxiety,which inturn causes road rage,and do you realy think someone in a car like that, wants someone like you tailgating them down the road because there car cant go any faster,the end result would be both drivers anxiety levels rising,increasing the chance of a crash occuring.

I dont think increasing speed limits or having no speed limits is the answer to road rage, If you have a road rage state of mind before you even get in your car because your worried about not being able to travel at the speed YOU desire,maybe you shouldnt be on the road at all.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by FORD3V

The second paragraph clearly states your mentality,abolishing speed limits on lengthy streches of road,this may be safe enough in a high powered modern car,although it would increase your chances of dieing were you to crash.

The BA that I recently bought is the only car that I have owned that I would feel safe enough to do this in,all my previous cars have been pre 1980's fords's,holdens etc,poor handling,fogged up windows,terrible brakes,generaly handle's like a boat,especially at high speed.

Car's like my old one's that wernt the most powerful cars could barely go over 100kph let alone safely,not everyone has or can afford a car that you can cruise along at 150kph.

If you were stuck behind such a car on a road without speed limits it would be more likely to increase your anxiety,which inturn causes road rage,and do you realy think someone in a car like that, wants someone like you tailgating them down the road because there car cant go any faster,the end result would be both drivers anxiety levels rising,increasing the chance of a crash occuring.

I dont think increasing speed limits or having no speed limits is the answer to road rage, If you have a road rage state of mind before you even get in your car because your worried about not being able to travel at the speed YOU desire,maybe you shouldnt be on the road at all.

I think that you have allowed yourself to be brain washed into thinking that if someone ever goes over 110kph they are going to DIE!!!

If the correct roads got there (//) status back (yes not so long ago lots of roads in Australia had free limits) traffic would move so much more freely and every driver would simply just find the speed that they are confortable with and then proceed to concentate on the road, not the speedo.

And how does having a choice as to what speed you travel at increase or cause road rage, where did that come from? From experince, driving on open roads in sooo much more safe in the rite circumstances. Lets look at the Lasseter highway. It had speed limit of 110 put on it (it used to be (//) )The number of fatalities on that stretch of road has gone up (on a year to year basis) since the limit was imposed.

Being behind a slower car on an open road does not increase anxiety.... The fact that you can overtake at what ever speed is safe helps prevent this. Also it would be implied that any (//) zones would not be areas of high volume traffic.
Before anybody really critisizes open limits, they really should aquaint themselves with them.... We are fairly hopefull up here that we will get ours back after the 09 election.... if not before.

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by FORD3V

The second paragraph clearly states your mentality,abolishing speed limits on lengthy streches of road,this may be safe enough in a high powered modern car,although it would increase your chances of dieing were you to crash.

The BA that I recently bought is the only car that I have owned that I would feel safe enough to do this in,all my previous cars have been pre 1980's fords's,holdens etc,poor handling,fogged up windows,terrible brakes,generaly handle's like a boat,especially at high speed.

Car's like my old one's that wernt the most powerful cars could barely go over 100kph let alone safely,not everyone has or can afford a car that you can cruise along at 150kph.
be
If you were stuck behind such a car on a road without speed limits it would more likely to increase your anxiety,which inturn causes road rage,and do you realy think someone in a car like that, wants someone like you tailgating them down the road because there car cant go any faster,the end result would be both drivers anxiety levels rising,increasing the chance of a crash occuring.

I dont think increasing speed limits or having no speed limits is the answer to road rage, If you have a road rage state of mind before you even get in your car because your worried about not being able to travel at the speed YOU desire,maybe you shouldnt be on the road at all.

What the hell makes you think anyone in a FAST car would sit behind a SLOW car and tailgate them for 50+ kilometers down a lengthy stretch of road if there were NO LIMIT.

No way in hell are you going to tailgate a car doing 100kph when you know you can pull into the other lane and continue on your way at 160 if thats what you wish.

You know what else the good thing is, if you dont feel safe enough traveling over 100kph in your crapbox - guess what - you dont have to, but theres no reason to deny people that have cars designed to go quicker the opportunity to do so. It's thier own life and car they have at risk, crash at 110 and your pretty well dead anyway, so going over 100 isnt going to affect a massive percentage of crashes in any way thats important, it will just reduce fatigue related crashes.

Furthermore - if you dont feel safe in your car traveling over 100km/h, then I would dare say you should not be on the road in that car. Either you or the car are not up to the standards to safeley travel the roads, and untill you can isolate weather it is YOU or your car, you should remove both of them from our streets for all our sake.

Its nothing to do with modern cars either.... In my time Ive had a 1972 valiant, a 1982 cortina, a 1983 camira (4cyl crapira), a 1984 xf, 2 x 1985 xf's, a 1985 torago, and 2 x 2000 AU's - Not even the oldest, or most un-performance of the whole group struggled to travel over 150 on country roads (and probably still wouldnt have any trouble after sitting and rusting for 5-10+yrs), so if yours cant cap 100 - its got some MAJOR problems