Road Rule Theory

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

Because he is driving a cement truck?
Maybe he aint as thick as his load.

So there has been a thread today against trucks, so you try and turn my post around to make it look like I am bad mouthing trucks?
10 points for trying, but I wasn't the one bringing the truck into this thread.

Originally Posted by flappist

So what do you need as proof?

A youtube account showing every single time somebody drives?
A facebook page with all the friends taking pics?
Or a twitter account updated by everyone who is on the same road?

All of the above please.

But on a serious note, I don't care anymore.
Ok Ill just agree that some people driver faster as soon as it rains.

[flappist]

The first rule of driving is that there are no rules about attitude.....

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by Ben73

So there has been a thread today against trucks, so you try and turn my post around to make it look like I am bad mouthing trucks?
10 points for trying, but I wasn't the one bringing the truck into this thread.



All of the above please.

But on a serious note, I don't care anymore.
Ok Ill just agree that some people driver faster as soon as it rains.

I promise you I wasn't trying to manipulate anything relative to this thread or any other.

I clearly understood your reply that the cement truck driver is probably an idiot all the time, not just in the rain.

It could be said that I used to resemble the remark but I wouldn't necessarily agree, especially as I've never driven a cement truck

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by bingoTE50

If we all drive at 20 km/h ,I reckon we could do it , imagine the fuel economy .

Imagine how much extra everything would cost if it took 4 to 5 times as long to transport goods around the country.

Imagine taking 50 hours to drive from Melbourne to Sydney instead of 10 or so.

Imagine allowing up to 4 or 5 times the amount of time to get to work.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

Imagine how much extra everything would cost if it took 4 to 5 times as long to transport goods around the country.

Imagine taking 50 hours to drive from Melbourne to Sydney instead of 10 or so.

Imagine allowing up to 4 or 5 times the amount of time to get to work.

Imagine what it would be like if something cost 5 times as much and took 5 times as long as it should?

No need, just join the public service and experience it first hand........

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Why do people on this forum come up with the dumbest arguments about road safety. Of course if everyone followed the road rules fatal road crashes would be greatly reduced. A large percentage of road fatalities can be contributed to speed, street racing, showing off for mates, driving too fast for conditions, alcohol, running red lights, running amber lights, not giving way at intersections, talking on mobile phones, running stop signs, driving like a dick in general, etc etc etc

Why do people argue stupid things like as long as you stick to the speed limit I can switch my brain off.....and they use it as an argument for speeding Yes you stick to the limit, you also drive to the conditions, time of day, road surface, traffic etc etc, you concentrate on the task at hand and drive safely and with consideration to other road users, very very simple.

All the hair brain stupid arguments are pointless.

Of course there will always be a stray animal or what ever on the road that can not be accounted for, but there are a million other things driver ignore daily that can be accounted for.

Re people driving faster in the rain, I see it all the time, especially drivers in crapy four cylinder cars trying to do burn outs and drift in the wet like big heroes. Anyone that works in emergency services such as fire rescue, police and ambos will be able to tell you as soon as it rains the cars into poles, houses, trees etc etc escalates rapidly.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

While in theory, behind the desk in an insurance company office this might sound plausible, its not the case in the real world.

Explain to me how someone can drive to conditions with regards to hitting a stray roo or a stray bull/cow/horse in the middle of nowhere. This is in theory possible to do at anytime or any place because the whole country is scattered with them. Obviously, in a country area it is more likely. Does this mean that you drive around at 20kph just in case if you don't live in a capital city? Is this what you mean by driving to conditions? As I said, great theory but not quite acheveable in reality. Not if you actually want to get anywhere!

I also want to know if you have actually driven on country roads, or is your experience of driving limited to feeways and arterial roads around a large city?

I believe the op would be more qualified to comment than most, just because he sits behind a desk as part of his job does not make him an idiot, as I am sure he also drives a car same as everyone else here.

On top of that he would see hundreds possibly thousands of claims showing driver breaking road rules causing accidents, and from personal experience generally when an accident occurs some road rule has generally been broken, like not give way, travel to close to stop safely, neg drive, run red light etc etc

[FgNewbie]

buddha did you have something like this in mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpdOiq-2DFU
it gets better than holding hands

[mik]

it will never work, humans make mistakes , do dumb things for a million reasons, want to stop road accidents? don`t let humans drive.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Why do people on this forum come up with the dumbest arguments about road safety. Of course if everyone followed the road rules fatal road crashes would be greatly reduced. A large percentage of road fatalities can be contributed to speed, street racing, showing off for mates, driving too fast for conditions, alcohol, running red lights, running amber lights, not giving way at intersections, talking on mobile phones, running stop signs, driving like a dick in general, etc etc etc

Why do people argue stupid things like as long as you stick to the speed limit I can switch my brain off.....and they use it as an argument for speeding Yes you stick to the limit, you also drive to the conditions, time of day, road surface, traffic etc etc, you concentrate on the task at hand and drive safely and with consideration to other road users, very very simple.

All the hair brain stupid arguments are pointless.

Of course there will always be a stray animal or what ever on the road that can not be accounted for, but there are a million other things driver ignore daily that can be accounted for.

Re people driving faster in the rain, I see it all the time, especially drivers in crapy four cylinder cars trying to do burn outs and drift in the wet like big heroes. Anyone that works in emergency services such as fire rescue, police and ambos will be able to tell you as soon as it rains the cars into poles, houses, trees etc etc escalates rapidly.

Yes, the above resonates with me too.

When we look at the things that seem to cause a lot of the collisions, then Id say a road rule is being violated most of the time.

Mostly Id anticipate that collisions at intersections have to be road rule infringemetns. The collision only happens because someone has proceeded when they shouldnt have according to who has right of way, a road rule has been violated, this is regardless of whether the failure to give right of way was caused accidently, by poor judgement etc.

Mechanical failure, it really is right down on the list of causes, as are animals making us run off the road etc

[chevypower]

I agree that if everybody followed 100% of the road rules, 100% of the time, you would MINIMIZE the number of accidents, but you wouldn't eliminate all of them. Are they still trying to say there is no such thing as an "accident" over there?
"any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause."

[flappist]

If all these road rules are the way, the truth and the light then WHY DO THEY KEEP HAVING TO CHANGE THEM?

Would all the people who religiously followed a road rule that was revoked suddenly have been dangerous?

And more importantly should those who advised on and created a road rule that was later revoked be treated as criminals who purposely contributed to the road toll and jailed?

It is always someone's fault, someone is to blame so maybe it is the "road safety experts" who should be all lined up against a wall and shot......

For the good of the people of course.....if it just saves one life....

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Mechanical failure, it really is right down on the list of causes, as are animals making us run off the road etc

And to throw in the red herring before a bull in a china shop .....

Driving over the posted speed limit, without any other causal factor is even further down the list.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

And to throw in the red herring before a bull in a china shop .....

Driving over the posted speed limit, without any other causal factor is even further down the list.

Oh it's so true.
Most "speed" related crashes are not caused by speed. But caused by someone breaking another rule I.e failing to give way. Running a red light. Pedestrain breaking the law by stepping onto the road without looking and so on.

[AndrewR_AUII]

My feeling is that most accidents come down to ATTITUDE:

- Accepting that from time to time people will * up
- Leaving room for people for when they do * up
- That the right of way is GIVEN, not taken
- taking proper care and driving to the conditions
- taking proper care of the vehicle, ensuring that as far as possible it is in sound condition

[2011G6E]

I've never used speed limit apathy for an excuse for people speeding. I'd just like to see "road safety campaigns" that didn't just say "don't speed". They should be telling people that driving is a difficult task requiring constant concentration. Just because you are doing the speed limit doesn't mean you are "safe". But if they told people this, they might frighten a lot of people.
Which might be a good thing.
When you are in a state of fear, you concentrate more on what's happening around you.

Ulrich Mellinghoff said that speed limits need to be raised to increase safety, not lowered.
http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2224/an-illusion-of-safety

Here's a way to make driving safer: make it riskier.

A German safety expert recommends we raise speed limits on our roads, not lower them.

Ulrich Mellinghoff, head of safety at Mercedes-Benz, argues that raising the top speed on long stretches of Australia's roads to 130 or 140km/h could help combat driver fatigue.

Mellinghoff's argument is counter-intuitive. It will definitely make driving feel less safe, but it could result in fewer accidents. And it fits in with an increasing body of knowledge that suggests government attempts to protect us are have the opposite effect - making us less safe and, crucially, less able to manage risk.

We've had widely owned, personal transport for more than a century now. And we've learnt a lot about safety in that time. The University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman famously studied the results of the American 1966 Motor Safety Act that mandated new car safety standards. Instead of making driving safer, Peltzman found, the new standards prompted drivers to be more reckless on the roads, and endangered the lives of pedestrians. Other risk analysts have found the same occurred when seatbelt laws were introduced around the world.

Economists call that ''moral hazard'' - when people feel they are insulated from the consequences of their actions and behave differently as a result.

Some other interesting studies that we never get told about to do with risk and behavior are included there:

In 2007, a researcher in Bath, England, attached proximity sensors to his bicycle to see how car drivers responded to his bike helmet use. On average, cars came nearly 10 centimetres closer when he wore a helmet than without. Drivers acted much more dangerously because they assumed the rider was safe. These problems aren't limited to road safety.

The insurance industry is acutely aware that some customers fail to protect their property when it's insured. Bushwalkers venture further away from civilisation if they believe search and rescue will be there to help them.

Researchers have even found the introduction of improved ripcords on parachutes did not lower the incidence of skydiving accidents. Instead, they just encouraged skydivers to pull their cords later.

This is also very interesting...can't see it happening in our cotton-wool wrapped country though...

There are solutions. In a revolution in traffic management across Europe, a number of towns are removing traffic lights, stop signs, and other road markings. Once eliminated, drivers enter intersections more slowly and more attentively. Instead of focusing their attention on signs, they make eye contact with other drivers. They negotiate. Accidents in these towns have dramatically declined.

The Dutch have been experimenting with "shared streets", where the barriers between pedestrian walkways and roads are eliminated. Again, this sounds abominably dangerous. But when guard railings between the footpath and the road were removed from London's Kensington High Street, accidents fell by 47 per cent.

These are all legitimate studies, conducted by legitimate organisations. You can bet, however, that if they said "lower speed limits are good", that we would have had them rammed down our necks by tut-tutting government talking heads long before now.

Our own country has seen a prime example of this, which isn't widely reported.
In the Northern Territory when they did away with "no speed limits" and made it "130kph limit", in the first twelve months following the introduction of the limit, fatalities rose by a staggering 50%!!
Heads were scratched, road safety experts had heart attacks...what was going on??? Easy.
People who, previously, would have driven at a speed they felt comfortable (and that could be as low as 100 to 110), now had been officially told that 130 was perfectly OK, so they started doing 130...everywhere. As with the studies above, people would "self regulate", but with an "officially sanctioned limit", they drove at that speed whether before they would have or not.

[Ben73]

All true. And most of that has been said here before. But the self appointed road safety experts will tell you it's all 100% wrong. They won't give proof it's wrong, they will just say governments cares about our safety that's why they enforce low speed limits.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

When you are in a state of fear, you concentrate more on what's happening around you

The article has it's merits - I'm not so sure that this part is true of driving though...I would say less aware of what's around them, as they're jumpy and extremely dangerous to have on the roads...

I'm not disputing the article at all, but let's face it, there's a lot of poor drivers out there - do you really want them doing 130 or 140 down the highway?? It's bad enough when they're doing 100...

There is one possible question from the nay-sayers - has Ulrich Mellinghoff ever driven on Australian roads, and is he qualified to make that kind of recommendation?

There is one sure fire way to make sure people behave on the roads - metal spike where your airbag would be...I'll let you draw your own pictures...

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

On top of that he would see hundreds possibly thousands of claims showing driver breaking road rules causing accidents, and from personal experience generally when an accident occurs some road rule has generally been broken, like not give way, travel to close to stop safely, neg drive, run red light etc etc

Which has what to do with an accident involving wildlife or stray cattle?

It was the statement that was made regarding avoiding wildlife that I had a query with. How can one possibly drive to conditions in regard to cattle or wildlife? Do you know where a stray cow or a roo will pop up?Its not likely to happen all that often, so how can you prepare for it?

Have you ever had a close call with a bull in the dark of night on a country highway? Not easy to predict or allow for really!

[Ben73]

Well some people on here will say you have to drive to the conditions. To avoid all wildlife at night you will have to drive at 20km/h. Which is not going to happen.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by flappist

So following road rules will prevent mechanical failure, tyre failure, animals running across the road, trees falling, weather incidents etc etc?

Do you really believe that every accident is due to not following road rules?

Are you serious?

The real world is not like playstation......

So then Playstation has road rules?

[bingoTE50]

I broke the speed limit the other day , 70 in a sixty whilst changing lanes ,merging into the next lane ,safely ,then flash ,a tradies looking unit on the nature strip unmarked . I should have stood on the brakes before changing lanes ,caused a rear ender for someone ,then merge. What a blatant money grab.....and guess what -I didn't die .....still here ...liars ..

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

What is the fascination with wild life on the road, I doubt it would rate on human fatalities scale, and a situation a huge percentage of city drivers would never encounter.

So is your argument why bother following the road rules because you might be killed by a stray cow or kangaroo??? Well if it is, it's a dumb and pointless argument.

If it is not please explain to me how society would NOT benefit from following the road rules, apart from the fact that an animal might run out in front of your car, so you are saying it is pointless for every road user to drive safely and drive to conditions (like slow down when wet/fog/slippery/limited visibility/busy traffic/etc etc) as you might hit a cow regardless??? Well you might also get hit by lightening, get struck by a meteor or spontaneously combust.

Are you saying by sticking to the speed limit and hitting a cow it would not make a difference if you were going 10km slower or if you were going 10,20,30km/hr over the limit?? I am sure driving to the limit would reduce the severity of the impact with this cow that will kill us all, would increase our reaction time to stop, would give us more time to stop, would give the cow more time to move, would give us greater opportunity to avoid the impact with the cow than if you were traveling over the limit.

Originally Posted by bingoTE50

I broke the speed limit the other day , 70 in a sixty whilst changing lanes ,merging into the next lane ,safely ,then flash ,a tradies looking unit on the nature strip unmarked . I should have stood on the brakes before changing lanes ,caused a rear ender for someone ,then merge. What a blatant money grab.....and guess what -I didn't die .....still here ...liars ..

So basically you are saying you were speeding and not paying attention and you got caught....suck it up and pay your voluntuary contribution to our government, as no one else pressed the accelerator, and payed so little attention that they did not see a mobile speed camera, the ones I generally spot 100 meters before I get to them whilst traveling at the speed limit.

No one says you die as soon as you speed, but your chances do increase, if you can not get that simple concept then you should probably be off the road anyway. And hopefully now you are one step closer to catching a bus

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irish2

So then Playstation has road rules?

Yes....you are not allowed to play Playstation while driving......

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Our own country has seen a prime example of this, which isn't widely reported.
In the Northern Territory when they did away with "no speed limits" and made it "130kph limit", in the first twelve months following the introduction of the limit, fatalities rose by a staggering 50%!!
Heads were scratched, road safety experts had heart attacks...what was going on??? Easy.
People who, previously, would have driven at a speed they felt comfortable (and that could be as low as 100 to 110), now had been officially told that 130 was perfectly OK, so they started doing 130...everywhere. As with the studies above, people would "self regulate", but with an "officially sanctioned limit", they drove at that speed whether before they would have or not.

The only people scratching their heads right now are the ones wondering why there are still people cherry picking stats from the NT , but something tells me you want be the last.

the absurdity of doing this has been exposed several times on this forum already and checking back even yourself made several posts in the thread where the nonsense was supposedly put to rest.

One disreputable newspaper picked it up, but the rest stayed well clear as at least they had some journalists with either integrity and research skills and/or both.


The last person to make a reference to it here:http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...6&postcount=77, follow the links to other people who have paraded this distortion of reality.

Is it people are devious or just have memory recall equivalent to goldfish, must be the former as they certainly can recall anything to do with faster is safer!

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

What is the fascination with wild life on the road, I doubt it would rate on human fatalities scale, and a situation a huge percentage of city drivers would never encounter.

Did you read the thread? The theory is if you obey all rules all the time there will be ZERO fatalities.
Then the point put forward was random animals are unpredictable.

As many country drivers would agree kangaroos are the most popular animals to wander out from behind trees in front of fast moving cars. Now hitting a kangaroo probably won't kill you(unless it comes through your window) but some inexperienced drivers will attempt to swerve at the first sign of something on the road. Violent sudden swerving at the speed limit could easily result in loss of control and a crash.

Therefore the theory of obeying all road rules will result in zero fatalities is not valid.

[2011G6E]

We could reduce the road toll significantly with only a small bit of political will power...unfortunately this would be coupled with a large influx of political spending.
All major highway should be divided four lane. This alone has been estimated to reduce accidents by a massive margin simply by seperating traffic heading different directions. Every minor highway should be wide two lane with good run off areas and no massive trees alongside the highway. Rosedale Road north of Bundaberg used to have gum trees of up to two and three foot diameter less than a car width off the side of the road for long stretches. The council grew a pair and cleared them all, and despite cries from local greenies, it has become a much safer-feeling road to drive along now.

Couple all this with an intense driver training program. Make it hard...damn hard...to get a licence. Then bring in a similar system to what we train drivers have to face in our job.
Every eighteen months to two years, we have to go through a "Maintainance Of Competance" examination. Basically, we totally "re-sit our licences", and prove that we still know all the rules and still have all the skills needed, and that we are still up to scratch. If we aren't, we can be put off the rails until our skills are back up to standard.
A lot of us train drivers wonder what the roads would look like if car drivers faced the same thing...they'd be a lot emptier, I would wager.

After all, "if it only saves one life"...

The theory that if you obey the rules no fatalities will occur is fatally flawed itself by a simple piece of physics and human physiology.
Studies have shown that an impact with a solid immoveable object (truck, tree, bridge pilon, embankment, etc) at anything above 80kph is "basically unsurviveable". No matter how many airbags, no matter the crumple zones, your body just can't take a sudden deceleration of that magnitude.
Oh sure, occasionally there will be the "miracle survival story" in the news, but that is a vanishingly small chance. Usually you'll be nicely brown bread.

Also, claiming that "you won't have that impact if you follow the road rules" ignores the fact that there will always...always...be the unexpected...a blowout, a simple mechanical failure, human error, anything. Following the rules is no absolute guarantee of never coming to grief from some unforseen circumstances.

[FgNewbie]

Don't pick on poor Roos. Skippy looks before crossing

[bingoTE50]

Who were you ? XB351Coupe ? Drove a GT version once in 1981 ...

Quote...
So basically you are saying you were speeding and not paying attention and you got caught....suck it up and pay your voluntuary contribution to our government, as no one else pressed the accelerator, and payed so little attention that they did not see a mobile speed camera, the ones I generally spot 100 meters before I get to them whilst traveling at the speed limit.

No one says you die as soon as you speed, but your chances do increase, if you can not get that simple concept then you should probably be off the road anyway. And hopefully now you are one step closer to catching a bus[/QUOTE]
Ahh - you have no idea of the situ . Nice assumption you made . If you really believe the Government ,the cameras save lives . BS. I have no issue paying the fine at all, I know I went over the speed limit ,not a problem,circumstantial not habitual..
I was actually using sarcasm in regards to the - every k over is a killer.

As for being better of being off the road and on a bus , who the hell do you think you, are you clown , you do not know me, or my driving history .
How much driver training have you had ? Never ever broken the speed limit ? Ever ? Not even overtaking on the open road ? You are kidding me right ...

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by buddha

Just something I want to put out there for discussion, I have a theory about the road rules which seems to make sense to me, but I'm keen for anyone to point out flaws in it.

I realise the road rules are far from perfect, but my theory is this:

If 100% of road users, followed 100% of the road rules, 100% of the time, we could zero out the road toll.

What do you think?

I don't think it will work. Sounds like blind right wing logic.

However if people did that everyone would be able to get places 10 times faster instead of me being forced to overtake every retard on the road who cant do the speed limit/keep left.