Whether "some" people here care to admit it or not, speed and drink driving are "THE" major killers on our roads. You can deny it till the cows come home, but denial doesn't alter it. It's vital that the emphasis on resources be directed towards these 2 "KILLERS".

AGAIN, I remind people that "speed" does NOT necessarily mean "going fast". You can be "speeding" at 60kph, or less, depending on prevailing conditions and other factors. There is NO SUCH THING as "safe" speeding.

AGAIN,I remind people that even a 10kph increase in speed GREATLY increases the stopping distance for a car. Most drivers, in their abysmal ignorance of speed knowledge and consequences, are blissfully unaware of stopping distances at various speeds and the resulting massive death and injury consequences resulting from going too fast in relation to limits and prevailing conditions.

To most people, a 10 or 20 kph speed increase (from any initial base speed) seems rather inconsequential. This false "belief" is the result of utter ignorance of the mathematics and science of speed. It's "amateurs" offering "uniformed" "opinion".

And guess what? "Of course" nothing will change their "opinion". Their freedom to behave as "they" think is appropriate on the roads is what is uppermost in their minds. It's becomes a matter of "freedom and rights" to them.......just "ideology". A "logical" approach to road safety based on fact, not "opinion", eludes them.

Philips

Speed and drink-driving appear to be the major killers, largely because that is how the stats are calculated. Are there even categories for accidents caused by bad overtaking, tailgating or slow road-hog driving?

Most accidents are caused by drivers who are impatient and have a terrible lack of respect for safety margins and error factors and who drive in a manner that reduces the safety margins right down close to the minimum and which heightens the chances of a small error or misjudgement leading to an accident.

This is why the policing of all indications of impatient and risky driving is very important, and why I am so critical of the police for not doing so, especially tailgating, which mobile units could so easily deal with when cruising our highways.

Let’s face it; most people who speed are also rotten drivers when it comes to tailgating and other behaviours that demonstrate impatience and unnecessary risk.

I’d say that it is vital that police resources get directed at all aspects of impatience and indicators of a lack of respect for risk factors, and not just at the two most obvious manifestations of these; speed and drink-driving.

.
Yes a 10kmh increase in speed makes a big difference to stopping distance and to a driver’s ability to avoid a hazard that suddenly appears in front of them.

So then, why do the police allow for a significant leeway on speed limits? There is obviously a 10kmh leeway in 100kmh zones of Queensland highways, and this appears to be the same throughout urban areas in 50, 60 and 80k zones.

How can the cops and government possibly tell us that ‘every k over is a killer’….and then proceed to let everyone do a few ks over?? ?? ??

Talk about woolly policing!! !!

I advocate an increase of 10kmh in just about all speed zones (in return for a vastly improved policing regime) because that is basically what we have now anyway – a 10kmh leeway.

Ludwig, I agree with most of what you say.

You ask, "why do police allow leeway on speed limits?". For safety reasons, that's why. If all police were always totally strict to within 1kph, then when every driver gets even slightly close to the speed limit they'll be looking at the speedometer more than the road......."not" safe at all. Now, your suggestion of a 10kph leeway solves this problem *BUT* I notice you ADD the 10kph to current limits, instead of decreasing current limits by 10 kph and *THEN* adding the 10kph leeway (which is my preferred option). That mere 10kph reduction will, over the years, save many, many lives.

For every single kph reduction in the "urban" limits, lives are saved (simply because of the mathematics of speed/distance/stopping time). Currently, the population is prepared to accept "certain" speed points.........the trade off being the deaths and injuries to motorists. We are prepared to see people die, to a certain number, so we can have our freedom to get from point A to point B at a particular speed. That's the way we have decided to live as a society on the roads.

Now, "some" people are NOT happy with that. These people are prepared to trade MORE deaths for their freedom to go from point A to point B *FASTER*. They see "their" rights as paramount.

Ludwig, "bad overtaking, tailgating and slow road-hog driving" are ALL "speed" related examples.

For example, did you know that it can take 2.5 kilometres to overtake a road train that's doing 100kph. That takes a lot of skill and control at "high speed".

When tailgating, if you smash into the driver in front of you, then you are going "too fast" in relation to the distance between the 2 cars.

If you encounter a slow road-hog, the correct and safe procedure is to reduce your "speed", keep at a safe distance, then increase your "speed" when it's safe to do so while overtaking. Blaming a road hog for someone else's impatience and bad reactions exonerates bad driving.......when we have a slow road hog combined with an impatient , reactive passing motorist, we have **TWO** very bad drivers.

"Speed" is a major killer on our roads. Having insight into "prevailing driving conditions", and adjusting speed accordingly, makes for a MUCH more mature and responsible driver.

Things like tailgating is not too bad and at normal speeds is not really dangerous except when there is a mismatch in vehicle sizes (ie a truck tailgating a car becomes very dangerous). Similarly overtaking in close proximity to other vehicles is safe (except in cases for example, when ignorant people with poor judgement cut in front of trucks and expecting them to have equivalent braking ability).

I think examples of dangerous driving are: Speeding when you are not capable of handling those speeds (some people in suitable vehicles are very capable and even safer than many ordinary drivers going at normal speeds). More importantly is the danger when speeding with: pedestrians/cyclists present nearby (in many cases they never are present though); in poor weather conditions; in blind situations, or while drunk or taking drugs (I consider speeding with DUI extremely dangerous at the peak of danger, in fact), though I do not consider DUI at ultra-low speeds dangerous unless you are an idiot. A key factor is that people who incorrectly overvalue or misjudge their own driving skills and road handling abilities of their vehicles.

This is what I do _not_ think is dangerous at all, but which currently is and criminalises and hurts many Australians: General speeding and high speeds; doing maneuvers ordinary drivers perceive to be hard and difficult (but which is in reality easy for more skilled drivers); DUI while taking precautions and going well below the limit; speeding when no pedestrians are present; Going through red lights when you are the only driver.

Phillips,

“Whether "some" people here care to admit it or not, speed and drink driving are "THE" major killers on our roads.”

Not in any normal and reasonable understanding of the term speed. Speed only qualifies if you argue things like you do with tailgating etc. which is pretty close to saying speed is involved because a crash requires at least 1 car to be moving. Normally only DoTs making oodles from speeding fine money go that broad.

“AGAIN, I remind people that "speed" does NOT necessarily mean "going fast".”

So why use such a irrelevantly broad definition when we are talking about speed limits?

“There is NO SUCH THING as "safe" speeding.”
Just like there is no such thing as a safe speed. If something is moving there is a potential crash. Plus the faster things move the harder they crash so (ignoring more relevant issues)you could improve safety if they reintroduced the flag man but that is not practical in modern society.

However there are speeds which coordinate with other moving objects better and account for the driving environment better. Research shows people crash less when they drive close to such speeds and that setting speed limits close to them reduces the dispersal of speeds and accidents. That is important and relevant to speed limits. Your foray into a broad definition of speeding to rationalize what would otherwise be complete demagoguery does not have the same relevance in this discussion.

CONT