RTA/RACV/RACQ etc: The ultimate nanny-state agencies? (1 Viewer)

[David Spade]

Oh i just read that there is a higher incidence of crashes overall on roads with higehr speed limits somthing



I want to know what possible objections people can realistically have to lower speed limits..

and i love fucken speeding i do like 160 everywhere, but i know the risks and the fact that A) *when* i crash i will die B) i am a danger do everyone else (they are a danger to me too so i dont give a FUCk) c) i am significantly increasing my chances of crashing

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Uhg, please don't start sounding like a Slashtard. I mean, it's always an important thing to consider, but what other explanations are even plausible? Are airbags really that successful? One could tell by comparing the crash rate to the fatality rate I guess.

First of all, he hasn't even established correlation. He simply asserted that regulations have been tightened over the period.

It can be explained by better driver training and education and by people become more conscientious (the exact opposite of what he asserts about people).

People are becoming wealthier and better educated and attitudes have changed. 20 years ago it was considered quite okay to drink drive by many people, today it is almost universally looked down on.

People are not complete morons that have to be forced to do the right thing. Look at how better awareness of the risks has led to a massive decline in the rate of smoking.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I think it is more that speed isn't the primary determinant in car accidents, given that poor driver control of the vehicle, fatigue, etc are all much more likely to lead to a crash.

Speeding in and of itself does not tend towards an increase in crashes.

Physics though, does show that through conservation of momentum, the faster a motherfucker is going, the more dead y'all gone be.

Perhaps a system where drivers who demonstrate higher levels of skill and training are permitted to drive faster would work better.

There so many alternative systems that we could experiment with and then we can see what works best.

If we allow different systems to compete, in the

FREE MOTHERFUCKING MARKET.

 

[David Spade]

~Increased standards in car safety features~

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

~Increased standards in car safety features~

Excellent point.

 

[incentivation]

It can be explained by better driver training and education and by people become more conscientious (the exact opposite of what he asserts about people).

Indeed.

Education and training have been a central part of the regulatory framework of road safety. It is nonsense to view these initiatives in isolation. They exist as part of a broader approach to road safety regulation. More stringent learning and provisional conditions for new drivers and an increased requirement to learn about driver responsibility and road safety have all been important features of this regime over the last 15 years in particular.


Even car safety features have become part of the regulatory regime imposed on manufacturers by government.

People are not complete morons that have to be forced to do the right thing

I disagree. There is a large portion of our society that requires guidance from government regulation. People cannot even manage their own health for goodness sake.

 

[Planck]

I disagree. There is a large portion of our society that requires guidance from government regulation. People cannot even manage their own health for goodness sake.

Yes, god forbid people make their own decisions free from coercion! Or make decisions pertaining to their own sphere of sovereign!

How dare they!

 

[incentivation]

Yes, god forbid people make their own decisions free from coercion! Or make decisions pertaining to their own sphere of sovereign!

How dare they!

I don't disagree. Government regulation should be confined to those areas where the implications of failing to do so would cause the moronic behaviour of one to adversely affect another. Unfortunately, the number of areas in which this is possible is growing. In short though, I just don't believe that a large portion of the population are not morons.

 

[Planck]

I don't disagree. I just don't buy into the idea that people are not morons.

So you have another group of morons tell them what to do?

Sounds intelligent.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

incentivations logic

1. People are stupid.
2. People need a government to regulate them.
3. People elect the government.

Since people are stupid, won't they make stupid decisions when electing the government, and therefore the government will only use its powers to re-enforce stupid ideas.

 

[incentivation]

incentivations logic

1. People are stupid.
2. People need a government to regulate them.
3. People elect the government.

Since people are stupid, won't they make stupid decisions when electing the government, and therefore the government will only use its powers to re-enforce stupid ideas.

I actually amended the original post. This large portion may not be majority, however it is significant enough to warrant intervention where the circumstances I outlined exist.

Why is it that reality seems to elude the libertarians of the world?

 

[Planck]

I actually amended the original post. This large portion may not be majority, however it is significant enough to warrant intervention where the circumstances I outlined exist.

Why is it that reality seems to elude the libertarians of the world?

You love being a slave to the new world order.

 

[incentivation]

You love being a slave to the new world order.

.

 

[aussie-boy]

You cannot deny that:

a) lower speeds = less severe crashes
b) lower speeds = less incidence of crashes
c) lower speeds =/= significantly increase travel times thus fatigue levels

so lol what have you got against a lower speed limit really? Sure it may be revnue raising but it is also a valid safety policy.


Best regards
Roads Engineer

b) is an extremely controversial point - there is certainly no consensus on this.

There are 2 major speed related issues on our roads:
1. Relative speeds of cars travelling together
2. Severity when you crash/decision time

If all cars are travelling around the same speed, even if its 140kph, its far safer than if everyone's doing 90 except 1 car doing 120.

If you raise all limits to the design speed of roads, bored drivers will no longer feel that they are pointlessly crawling along. Driving beyond the design speed involves the use of brakes - and its not comfortable to constantly accelerate and decelerate so less people will drive faster than everyone else

Of course the severity of crashes increases, however there isnt much difference between crashing at 110 and 130. Plus, crashes on well designed roads are usually the fault of the driver (drinking, fatigue) and all other sensible drivers should not have to suffer because of the stupidity of some

Also, decision time is not an issue, since on freeways the only real obstacles are other cars - which don't even seem to be moving because of relative speed. The curves have huge radii etc so you can see when something's coming up ahead

Aside from revenue raising, I think the benefits of saving every single driver 1/2 an hour far outweigh the risk that the road toll will increase by 1 or 2

 

[David Spade]

wrong

Edit: on almost every account, never post again on this issue

 

[aussie-boy]

wrong

Edit: on almost every account, never post again on this issue

Yeah cos 1 word posts end a debate just like that

Read this, its not clear cut at all
Is speed really a killer?

 

[0bs3n3]

wrong

Edit: on almost every account, never post again on this issue

lol what the hell? Provide reasons why he is wrong plzkthx.

I love this topic.