Rotor Convert

GLad you liked the Gorge it's a great road, had I known you were going to drive it I would have also recommended the Corkscrew road which runs off it. That's a great road however it might trouble your Kia!!!

If you are still here then you have to drive on another road, it's called Greenhill Road, drive up it to Mount Lofty. That's my favourite all time road, I can blat up that if work gets too much and then all my troubles seem to melt away!

HOpe your travels are fun, how long are you in Adelaide for? Hope you enjoy yourself.

We are off to Canada in 07, hopefully. Going back to Calgary, love that place! Want to go see the stampede! I know I know it's the cowgirl spirit in me!

Take care and travel safe. If you are around and want to meet an ozzie 8 owner drop me a PM. I'm bored at work this week and any excuse to get out of the office is a good one!
Cheers

ILIV48

Driving to work this morning at 6.00am there were only 3 cars on the road (me and 2 other about 300m in front of me) and they hit each other... Bang!!!

This was on a 4 lane straight section of road with a 60 limit. Could not believe my eyes, and still cannot work out how the hell they managed to do this!

After watching how people drive every morning on my long trip to work there is no way I would be game enough to ride a bike on the roads. I honestly believe the driving ability of a lot of road users is getting worse out there. To me it is more dangerous know than 10 years ago!

Ottog

In principle I agree with all of the sentiments posted in this thread. However there are many many experienced, capable and professional drivers that cause crashes that result in death and injury to people.



I can't agree with this 100%. Assuming the truck is in good condition and not overloaded it will required less distance to stop than your average car at the same speed. And yes before I get howled done there are times when an unthinking motorist does cut across way to late and cause the situation Gomez cites.

My experience and observation over the years is that in the majority of cases the truck driver is driving way too fast for the prevailing conditions often tailgating the car in front. They are on schedules and deadlines and god help any motorist in the way when they are running late.

Not to mention the countless surveys that clearly identify that a high percentage of them are popping pills to stay awake.

Even on a three lane freeway, broad daylight and no other traffic in sight you are not safe from trucks. Voice of experience here again. Driving along minding my own business and at peace with the world when a moron (so called professional driver) truckie who caught up with me decided to change from the outside lane to the centre lane. Result, the entire drivers side of my car was shredded and one very shaken up "Me" - truckies response "sorry I didn't see you". Go figure, he caught up to me from behind.

I've probaly gone off topic, I'm especially not happy with truckies at the moment.

To get back on topic speed is a factor inthe severity of the outcome when things go wrong but I feel that impatience and inattentiveness are the primary cause of crashes. Sadly some end in tragedy.

Cheers and be safe over the Christmas / New Year break.... Otto

astro

^^^ Try driving on the Monash Freeway (M1) down here. These truckies believe that they have every right to travel at the speed limit regardless of time/ traffic conditions. Lane hogging and tailgating for these massive transporters is also a common site.

Time for a break. Advance "Happy New Year" everyone!

takahashi

As most people here agree.

Driving above your ability in a given condition is an offense.
and
Excess of the limit suitable for condition is wrong.

It is very hard to set a standard.....

let see... how about getting under a 1'44" at Winton Raceway with your RX-8 ?
So we have to agree what is set for the public - that includes the 90 year old female in a 60s car and a 12 tonne truck with minimal brakes.

There was an interview by Jeremy Clarkson and Mr. Ladyman (the traffic minister of Britain). Clarkson asked Ladyman the stopping distance from 100kmh to 0. Then he suggested an Aston Martin can stop half of that... and why an Astin cannot go twice the speed limit.

It is very funny and very true.

Well though it is actually 41% more (a Aston will stop from 141kmh as well as a normal car at 100kmh), a square root of 200%, if you still remember your physics.

Revolver

Very interesting thread with some good thought provoking stuff from our Canuck visitor - hope you enjoy the rest of your time here.

Some idle comments (given most of it has already been said):

Small tax base + big distances = bad roads. Of course it doesn't help that the shiny bums spend it on everything else they think will get them re-elected but the simple fact is that, as a small pop. big country, we cannot afford roads of a standard seen in Europe, etc.

You would think that as a necessary result we would require our drivers to be better trained to deal with such ordinary blacktop (+ gravel, dirt, etc). For some reason people whinge about the cost of such a measure. What crap. Govts should not need to fund it - the driving public should. It's way too cheap and easy to get a licence IMHO. All beginners should have to pay for proper training AND do refresher courses at least every 5 years.

I also happen to think that speed cameras can be an effective safety tool, especially in school areas, etc. Like the cars that crash, it is their misuse that creates so much ire. As someone said earlier, a law that is broken by the vast majority of the population is usually a bad law and it either requires modification or some latitude in its enforcement.

yellowrx8inoz

Agree with you there Dave...

Sadly, given the poor skill of most of the driving population, reducing their speed to levels that minimise the harm they do to each other is probably the most effective strategy. And enforcing that behaviour with cameras and large fines seems to be the only way to knock it into their heads. Better driver training is politically unpopular because it doesn't give instant results, nor does it raise revenue (in fact it would reduce it!).

In the UK I was given initial driving lessons as part of the school curriculum, including off-road training (admittedly it was elective). I was also given - as every child was - good instruction and testing in cycling, under the National Cycling Proficiency Test...

Rotor Convert

Driver training for me was: taught myself to drive in 5 acre paddock, in an Austin Cambridge A60. Lots of fun, Dad taught me how to do handbrake turns and drift when I was 14!!!

I did have one driving lesson with an RAA guy who asked my dad not to bring me back, he thought I had all the skills and then some to get my licence! I think it was the hill start burn out I did in his little Gemini!!

Then off to the Victor Harbour to take my driving licence test which was once around the block with a policeman who read the paper!

I got my licence in the country and then drove into the city. I still remember driving on a dual lane road it was frightening!

Revolver

I would love to see this introduced here. I was taught to ride on the road by my Dad, who has been a keen cyclist since he was a kid and still trains and races regularly in his late 60's. He drummed some good lessons into me, which kept me alive when I was training and racing during my teenage years.

I see kids doing stupid things on bikes all the time. Worse, I see fat middle-aged blokes stuffed into lycra doing the same things, especially when they feel safety in numbers whilst bunch training on weekends.

Revolver

Yes, but the difference is that you're an intelligent woman blessed with a healthy dose of common sense. The same can't be said for a lot of the driving public, which is why they need some good driver training to instil the lessons you learned from experience.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

Gotta say that every time I go to Aus I am stunned at how everyone seems to drive to the posted limit .
Here in NZ the laws are pretty well policed as well but everyone seems to be happy to go 10-15 ks over the limit - no worries .
As for good drivers roads - we have plenty . The 8 is a great car to own here.

Spending time on the track is a great way to learn the limits of our cars & when on the road you know how fast you can go & stay well within them.

Revolver

There was a noticeable difference between Victoria and NSW when we drove down to Phillip Island from Sydney a couple of weeks ago. In NSW, many if not most people seem to hover around 8-12kms over the limit on the freeway, whilst in Victoria we stuck largely to the limit (maybe 2-3 kms over) and only got passed by a handful of cars. If you did the limit in NSW, you'd be getting passed all the time.

I notice that the NT is getting 130km/h limits now. The slavish and emotive reporting by the electronic media of the speed kills message, even when editorialising this development, was pathetic. Words like "open slather" were used to refer to the previous lack of speed limits in most of the Territory. Apparently the NT has a road death rate 3 times the national average. This simplistic stat was used to justify the move to speed limits. No mention though of the NT's huge per capita intake of alcohol, which must be a factor in that road death stat. And if you've ever seen the bush mechanics doco, I'm willing to bet that the state of some of the cars involved was, ahem, less than optimum.

labrat

There have been so many things discussed here under the general title of safe driving that probably they should be discussed in separate threads.

I certainly agree with Revolver's statement that licences are too easy to get. The European model should be looked at seriously. In Germany, you MUST attend a licensed driving school and do a prescribed number of practical and theoretical lessons before taking written and practical tests.

I also believe that the minimum driving age should be raised. When I got my licence in the 1960's in Victoria, the minimum driving age was 18. Just raising the minimum age one year would probably have a small but positive effective on road fatalities. Even if one life was saved, it would be worth it.

My next proposal will cause civil libertarians to blanch. I think that a proportion of the poulation is either intellectually or mentally unfit to drive. Consider that by definition, 50% of the population is below average intelligence. I'm not saying that people of say IQ 90 shouldn't drive, but also consider that there are approximately the same number under IQ 80 as there are over IQ 120 (about what you need to get a university degree), assuming a Gaussian distribution of IQ. Below what level of intelligence are you incapable of assessing the consequences of your actions behind the wheel? There are also many people who have personality disorders which render them unsafe behind the wheel. Obviously, people with psycopathic personalities can be downright dangerous in any social situation, but people who are also too eager to please or have a need for approval (for instance, when a mate says, "go on, let's see what it can really do") can be a menace too, as well as those who are only interested in self-gratification ("the need for speed"), regardless of the impact on others. Frankly, I think that there is not a politician alive who would risk the storms of protest that would arise if he or she suggested "psych testing" should be a pre-requisite to getting a learner's permit. Imagine someone even suggesting that research should be undertaken to see if a correlation existed between intellectual ability and/or personality characteristics and road safety. How far are we really prepared to go to significantly reduce the road toll below current levels?

takahashi

This thread is getting out of hand.

Using a generalised rule to sort out a general problem. Like raising minimal driving age, IQ level for driving.... will create unnecessary anger from the public. Discrimination is the word that they use.

One solution has been talked about from most of us. Education. Driving education is the key.

Most of my friend here have been converted - they are better driver, more responsible and use their speedy genes in our events and boy don't they enjoy it.

Mazda has given us, as a new owner of the RX-8, to have a driving training course (from Murcott). I highly recommend it. There are not many places that you are going to see the limit of your car. AND understanding the limit of yourself is MORE IMPORTANT!~


I drove around the back of Emerald, Gembrook and Belgrave yesterday in our traditional "around and good luck" drive.

I am driving well within the speed limit, in the twisty, in my Mazda 3. It was pouring down with rain. It is enjoyable since my kids are dosing off at the back, and me and my wife have some quiet ears for 2 hours!

That is enjoyable driving. I tell you.


Safe driving.

Mr Trackie ST1G

Lone Ranger

If pilots kept crashing planes, would the government simply say "slow down"?!?!?!?

No, they would like at maintenance, training, etc, etc..

IMHO the government can only see the cash and have blood on their hands.

timbo

Hmm....labrat, what fumes HAVE you been sniffing in that lab of yours?

Normally, I would be very impolite, but given your standard level of rationalism, I would just point out that before you go much further down this line, you'd need to show a strong correlation with intelligence (as measured by traditional IQ tests) and driving ability. I suspect that might be hard. I certainly don't recall Albert Einstein winning a F1 GP; nor do I see Michael Schumacher's name on the honour roll of break-through physicists.

Driving is surely all about foresight, reaction and motor skills. Intelligence as measured by IQ is possibly, at best, a necessary but not a sufficient condition for good driving skills.

As to my earlier comment about bad roads, and Revolver's response re the economics of distance and population, my point is that even when we do spend big money on roads in Australia (eg, the $Billions on the Hume), we don't get a quality result compared to roads in, eg, Europe -- having just driven north from Sydney, it is bleedingly obvious the section of the Pac Hwy north of the Hawkesbury River to Mt White -- all down-limited to 100/90kph -- was built to a poor alignment. You rarely find this on the big roads of Europe...and the construction costs/k would be generally comparable.

Revolver

I've never seen one of these road safety threads stay on the one topic, so I'm not even going to try.

Yep - agree with both of those points. The argument for a driving age less than 18 was that a significant proportion of people left school after year 10 and entered the workforce. However, these days the vast majority of students stay in school until 18ish and many go on to tertiary education as well. Perhaps some exception could be built-in for school-leavers who need to drive for their employment with mandatory driver training, etc.



Whoa! This is much tougher. I'm not exactly a world's best civil libertarian but I've been involved in enough cases with competing psych evidence to understand that establishing a reasonably fair, lowest common denominator test would be fraught with difficulty. I'm also sure you're aware of the literature that debates the efficacy of IQ testing for a range of applications. The other thing with this kind of exclusionary model is where do you stop? Before we know it, we'll see debates over whether certain types of people should be allowed to bear children, etc. It's a real thin end of the wedge type stuff and I agree there'll never be a pollie with the ***** to introduce it as an option with any serious intent.

Revolver

Yes, that's a good point. We certainly need to ensure that the money that is spent on roads is spent effectively.

Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of the road budget seems to be spent on traffic flow in big cities rather than safety. Although traffic flow no doubt assists safety and rural accidents occur for many reasons other than poor roads, the balance seems out of whack to me.

takahashi

No one have seen more country accidents than me in this forum.

It is certainly need a lot of education on those poorly serviced road. Someone killed himself in a 80kmh road work zone in the freeway. Just hit the dirt, spun out and hit a tree.

A lot of road toll I have seen in private properties, dirt bikes in farm land - yes I think they are counted in the road toll - I think so anyway.

Revolver

I'm not sure about that Taka. I was of the understanding that fatalities on private property aren't included in the stats.

timbo

Speaking of stats, the data released on NYD makes interesting reading -- significantly fewer fatalities, but P plate accident and death rate up. I guess that's something that can be used by both sides to justify arguments

see http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...500055862.html

takahashi

They counted the pedestrian death on the road side at Footscray this morning. And a cyclist hit by a car.

There should be a definition of road toll. They can just change the figure and make them look good.

Revolver

Yes, but were both cars entering or leaving a public thoroughfare? I quite agree the consequences can occur off the road but I think if the vehicle was being used on a public road immediately before or after impact, it gets counted. I doubt dirt bike accidents on the back paddock make the stats but I could be wrong about that.

Revolver

Thanks for the link Timbo.

Perhaps these new figures demonstrate that younger drivers will take risks no matter how many speed cameras are installed. I also wonder how many might have been saved had they undergone more advanced driver training?