Not so long ago Julie Bishop said in Question Time “She created the stolen vehicle that the bank robbers took to the bank to rob the bank”. The implication was that Julia Gillard created a legal vehicle that was later misused and therefore was implicated.

Using Julie Bishop’s same logic she must also accuse car manufactures that produce cars that have the capability of exceeding the speed limit, of speeding and thus speed related road fatalities. Road Policing Statistics state that for all fatalities speeding accounts for 34%.

I may be accused of drawing a long bow as Julie Bishop clearly was. The question that remains to be answered is why we have vehicles capable of 430kmph such as the Bugatti Veyron on our roads, when the fastest you are able to drive legally drive in Australia is I believe, 130kmph in the NT. You don’t need a Bugatti as Australia’s cheapest car the Chery J1 will exceed speed limits.

We have the technology to limit speed and as a consequence potentially reduce fatalities up to 34%. It would also reduce none fatal injuries that cost individuals and the community generally so much. In addition to safety it would free up our police forces, be less demanding on roads and reduce our carbon footprint just to mention a few.

Silly me! I just thought limiting the speed of vehicles would reduce revenue as it would make “Flash for Cash” virtually facilities obsolete

You do realise that Bishop was being metaphorical? She was drawing a comparison between a get-away car and our beloved leader's AWU 'slush fund'. Both were used to steal money although one was used to steal from banks and the other was used to steal from workers.

mhaze

Yep that did not elude me. The other metaphor has obviously eluded you? Read it again with the eye patch off. Some on subject comment would be appreciated.

I apologise for the couple of typos, I should spend more time proof reading.

Nah, Bishops analogy is valid. Gillard intimated that she was “just a girl” at the time…a stooge in love. She drove the getaway car while fondling her then current union lover’s testis.

Like Patty Hearst, she was just along for the ride and like Patty Hearst, Gillard now gets a whopping $500,000 a year since she voted herself a $130,000 pay rise last year.

The old class comment of "let them eat cake" came to mind when I found that all the pollies greedily took monetary kudos but knowing they are dismal failures.

Producer I have spoken of my 22 years working for what was then the DMR/RTA on the Pacific Highway Death strip.
Not much fun, counting the dead.
Leaving bed , running to get on site at 2am to yet another fatal.
No car, no truck ever killed.
All such are bought about by the driver.
A truck driver, in front of me, said the truck he ran it to bought about the smash, it was going too slow!

Producer, anyone can hop into a car and travel at 90km/hr down a one way crowded street, a 40 K shared zone, as every car made today will do that speed.

So what would you think is worse, 90 in that case, or 320 down the highway, or more so, which of these two do you think is more likely to happen in every day life.

Besides, very few can afford a 320km/hr car, but even a bomb will do 90.

As Belly says, it's all about the driver, not the car.

And Belly, cars/trucks do die, just look at the amount of junk yards.

It depends on your interpretation of dying. But at least they get recycled.

"Road Policing Statistics state that for all fatalities speeding accounts for 34%."

While that might be what the authorities state it isn't what the statistics state. The most generous reading of the statistics says that speeding was a factor (not the sole cause) in 34-40% of fatalities. Police are able to list several reasons for the accident and if the last of those is shown as speed it still gets used in these numbers, even if other factors where much more important.

But speeding doesn't necessarily mean exceeding whatever arbitrary limit the authorities have set. It means exceeding some assessment of the appropriate speed given the conditions at the time. Additionally, in some types of accidents, speed is routinely blamed even when there is no evidence for it being a factor. eg if a car leaves the road on a curve, speed is blamed as one of the factors even though it could just have easily been caused by driver inattention of drowsiness. If a truck jack-knifes, speed is blamed even though the truck was braking. If you slide of an icy road while doing 20kph, speed is blamed.

The best overseas research is that excessive speeding probably accounts for 5 - 10% of accidents.

But if suits government to demonise speeding (as though doing 61 in a 60 zone is inherently dangerous while doing 59 is inherently safe ) because it allows government to raise revenue while appearing to protect the community. They never mention that road conditions are equally culpable as per the stats because there is no revenue from that, only costs

I take on board all the points that have been made to date and cannot argue with the majority of them. However you have all missed the point I was attempting to highlight.

Put simply, why are vehicles produced that are capable of exceeding legal speed limits when there is technology available that will limit speed. Recent developments not only limit maximum speed but have the ability to recognise the change in speed zones. Surely the adoption of this technology would have a positive effect on road fatalities and injuries.

The other point which was a little less obvious is, car manufactures produce cars that have the ability in some cases to exceed maximum legal limits multiple times. As there is technology available that can limit speed, are not car manufactures aiding and abetting speeding drivers, as a consequence have some responsibility for fatalities and injuries? Perhaps some ambulance chasing lawyer needs to do something meaningful and pick this one up.

Producer what I meant was it was not the car that killed.
Some true events from long ago.
The some times night mares and memory,s of police ambos and road workers badly effected remain.
Two couples towing caravans, all in 70,s head on all dead.
During clean up high speed motor bike under semi, driver dead hard and horrible sight/job retrieving him.
See some times it is speed, the ability to correct a silly move, trying to over take in the wrong place, that lets you get back in line.
people kill not cars.

Belly again I take your point and what you say is true, a person must make a decision to move a vehicle before an accident can happen. What I am about to say may sound a bit silly and extreme, but does illustrate my point.

Consider this; if all the vehicles in accidents you describe above where stationary. None of the accidents would have happened. No one would have been killed or hurt! Only when vehicles move does the danger start and the danger increases with speed. If all the vehicles were traveling at 1kmph they would impact at 2kmph. It is highly unlikely anyone would have been hurt never alone killed. As the speed increases, so does the danger as it has an amplifying effect (speed increases the vehicles kinetic energy). Combine this amplifying effect with all the other factors; speed has to be a factor although not the only one, in all accidents. As well as other things, we as society set limits on speed to reduce the risk to acceptable limits in a multitude of different scenarios.

I will say again; as there is technology is available that can limit speed, are not car manufactures aiding and abetting speeding drivers, as a consequence have some responsibility for fatalities and injuries where speeding is a factor?

.....Road Policing Statistics state that for all fatalities speeding accounts for 34%."

So may I suggest you define what is considered as 'speeding', when referred to in the stats as an accident involving a vehicle traveling at 70, in a 60 zone, is technically speeding.

In fact, it would be interesting to know, of all accidents involving speed, what speed was the most common traveled in the highest percentage of such accidents,as accidents involving speed occur in all speed zones, from 40 right through to 130.

Yes Producer, it is silly & extreme, it is the same as saying if no one ever planted a crop, or harvested a beast, the planet would be more pristine. Well I suppose it would be, but it would not make it more attractive in most peoples opinion.

If you really want to reduce accidents, rather than restrict everyone to the lowest common denominator, why not raise the bar. Get rid of the less capable by much more severe licence testing, including the ability to handle a vehicle at speed. Driving should not be a right, but a privilege extended to the competent.

Then introduce a demerit system, not for speed, but for accidents, or behaviour, [drink/drug driving] likely to cause accidents. Once the incompetents were weeded out, the roads would be much safer.

Unlike today, penalties for unlicensed driving would have to be quite extreme, as today, very few disqualified drivers actually stop driving.

Yes hasbeen, a perfect example is that I @52 obtained my car license at age 17 and guess what, I have never been tested since.

If the Maximum speed in Australia is 130 Kph in NT then that is the maximum speed any car manufactured or imported into Australia should be governed to. It doesn't matter that a car can do 70 in a 60 zone that is not the point.

Does anyone need a car that, as the ads say, 0 to 265 in 60 seconds? Tell me where a normal driver can do 265 kph on any Australian road.

The top speed & power seem to be the two big selling points made by car manufactures ads. They aim their ads at the young inexperienced driver who, of course, will try out the power & top speed & wind up dead. Once again it is claimed that the inexperienced driver was to blame not the high power & unlimited top speed. Tell me something is not wrong here.

jayb I after giving up counting saw 73 deaths on my factory floor.
The then death strip on the Pacific highway.
Speed was not the major cause.
And it probably is not often the only cause.
Nothing can change the fact wet roads bought death.
We even thought we could smell it.
And while speed is a factor onc3e behind the wheel we owe it to our selves and passengers to take responsibility for our actions.

Belly I understand that speed isn't the sole cause of deaths on the road. Alcohol, micro sleeps wet roads; unmaintained & poorly designed roads all play a part in road deaths. I am not disputing that point. I agree with it.

The point I was trying to make is that car manufacturers make cars that do well over the speed limit. In fact up to & over 100 kph over the speed limit. Why is this allowed? There is a speed limit on the open road that for the most part is 100 kph, 120 on some western roads & 130 in the NT. They sell these cars to fools who will speed, kill & maim themselves & others. Why? Their market aim is these fools. Should car manufactures bear some responsibility if it is proven that someone is killed through speed?

Rubbish Jayb, the market is niot aimed at these foolish drivers at all.

I will bet my bottom dollar that the majority of these high powered cars are owned be responsible drivers.

Another stat worth considering is the number, or should I say TINY NUMBER of speed related deaths from high powered cars, in compariso to the total number sold innthis country.

If we all listened to the likes of you, it would be yet another case of punish the vast majority to control the rat bags. You know, a bit like the max two drinks rule at most bars today.

What is really needed is far more extreme punishments for offenders.

Crushing these very expensive cars would cause most 'repeat' offenders to reconsider their actions.

The old two strikes and you're out rule.

rehctub: I will bet my bottom dollar that the majority of these high powered cars are owned be responsible drivers.

Maybe so, but for what purpose? If they are not supposed to use that power speed, why do they have that type of car? Boastful Prestige perhaps. Yes I can see that but it still doesn't get away from the fact that they can't use that power or speed legally. So why produce a car for the general public that is over powered & capable of 265 kph on Australian roads.

Rehchub: If we all listened to the likes of you, it would be yet another case of punish the vast majority to control the rat bags. You know, a bit like the max two drinks rule at most bars today.

Hmmm... My take on that is that you maybe one of the very people we are talking about. The Drunken Revhead Ratbag. I don't know. I could be wrong. You could be a little old lady who only drives her car to church on Sunday, but I think not. We are talking about the street hoon that terrorizes the neighbourhood with wheelies. Sound like, by your post, that you may fit that category.

I can't comment on the 2 drinks rule. But I certainly wouldn't want to punish anybody unless they are a DRR, then they should have their car crushed on the first offence & made to watch the destruction complete with the 10's of thousands of dollars worth of Doof Doof machine.

I'm certain the vast majority don't want a high speed overpowered car, it just that they have very little choice. That's why I say that ALL cars should be governed to the Maximum speed allowed on
Australian roads.

<< Put simply, why are vehicles produced that are capable of exceeding legal speed limits when there is technology available that will limit speed >>

I agree in principle, Producer. But I wonder how it would really work. We have got be able to do 120kmh in order to quickly and safely overtake a vehicle that is doing 95kmh in a 100 zone on the open highway.

Limiting trucks to 100kmh on the highway is one thing. But it is a totally different story for cars in all the different speed zones.

I think that the key to the issue, as I’ve said many times on OLO, is to empower the public to do their bit, rather than just the very thin blue line having to witness speeding or whatever in order to book people for breaking the law on our roads.

We are implored to report litterers. We are encouraged to report suspicious people or vehicles as part of neighbourhood watch, whether or not they are doing anything wrong. But when it comes to reporting speeders or tailgaters or other rank drivers, The F…… COPS JUST DON’T WANT TO KNOW!! I have well and truly tested that out!!

This I consider to be absolutely DISGUSTING!

It is the biggest flaw in the policing of road safety, by far.

continued

If would-be rank drivers thought that just about anyone could report them for mucking up and that the complaint would count, then the vast majority of them would pull their ugly heads in and behave. But as it is, they feel as though there is SFA chance of them getting caught, because the cops basically have to see them effing around… and then they have to be bothered enough to do something about it!

One of the things I hate the most when driving is when I am sitting on 105kmh in a 100 zone and some turd comes quickly up behind me and sits far too close, telling me very strongly that I am not going anywhere near fast enough for him. This situation is magnified in roadworks zones if you dare to lower your speed to anything near the temporary slow speed limit!

The sort of technology we need is in-car camcorders, looking out the front and back, and at the speedometer, so that any untoward driving behaviour can be captured, and complaints to the police will have corroborating evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFkw5JFOmHk&feature=youtu.be

Jayb, believe me I am far from what you describe, but I am a firm believer that the masses should not be punished simply because the tiny minority can't be controlled.

Lugwig, the only way your theory could work, would be to fit devices to offenders cars, as such devices would have to be calibrated, sealed and made tamper proof.

The technology is there, in GPS type gadgets.

As for Joe average taking footage, you won't be convinced that it can't happen.

First and foremost, all offences are allegations, until either admitted (fine paid) or challenged.

Secondly, all police monitoring devices, including seedos are calibrated and, to simply try to convict an offender on public video footage would open the flood gates for lawyers wanting to make a quick buck, as any such case would be thrown out of court.

I think we should have dummy speed cameras on most roads, with active cameras swapped around randomly.

But, at the end of the day I still say you can't punish honest people just to stop the rat bags.

Interesting comments rechtub.

<< …the only way your theory could work, would be to fit devices to offenders cars, as such devices would have to be calibrated, sealed and made tamper proof. >>

No, not at all. They would be in the vehicles of those who WANT to help improve road-safety.

For that matter, hand-held camcorders would do the trick very nicely most of the time, if you have a passenger who has it at the ready as you are driving along.

For example, if you are sitting on the speed limit and you suddenly incur a chronic tailgater, then you could record it very easily, flash the camcorder from the rear to your speedo and back in an unbroken sequence, and to any speed limit signs that you may pass, etc. Very easy.

Now, if only the cops would encourage people to do this sort of thing, and thus considerably empower the general public to assist in getting the wank*rs off our roads, we’d be well and truly on the right track.

We don’t need expensive highly technical stuff. All we really need is for the general public to be able to help, instead of effectively being disempowered…. and for the police to damn well do the same with driving complaints as they do with just about every other issue, and follow up thoroughly on all complaints.

continued

<< I think we should have dummy speed cameras on most roads, with active cameras swapped around randomly. >>

Yes, in just the same way as we have had red-light camera boxes all over the place, most of which apparently have nothing in them, but which (at least in theory) can accommodate a camera that gets moved around to different sites.

The intent is to make us all feel as though there is a much higher chance of getting caught if we muck up. It is just the same motivation with improved empowerment of the general public. And hey, if only a very small percentage of the public took up the cause, we’d double or quadruple or perhaps increase ten-fold or heavens even a hundred-fold the number of effective police personnel out there on our roads!

I just find it bizarre and incomprehensible that the sort of thinking that is the basis for neighbourhood watch and for catching litterers completely doesn’t apply to road safety!

rehctub: Jayb, believe me I am far from what you describe, but I am a firm believer that the masses should not be punished simply because the tiny minority can't be controlled.

I really didn't think so mate, going on you other posts. You seem to have some sense, unlike some others on The Forum. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, at least we have the freedom to do so without getting our heads chopped off.

I fail to understand where you are coming from where you allude that it amounts to being punished if you can't do up to 265 kph on any Australian road. The maximum speed is mostly 100 kph on the open road? Do you consider we being punished & limited to 100 kph because of a few hoons can't control themselves? Are you in favour of an open road speed, anywhere because you are not one of the hoons?

As I said before the top road speed in Australia is 130 in the NT. I don't see the reasoning behind marketing a car for Australian roads that will greatly exceed that speed. It has nothing to do with punishment at all, it's just CDF. (Naval types will know what that is.)

Jayb, for some reason you have miss intermitted my post, perhaps it's my fault.

What I am saying is that just because a car can do 255km/hr, doesn't mean it will be driven at that speed.

What you are saying is that it would be better to take away that fast car, form law abiding drivers, simply because some dills can't help themselves.

This is what I mean when I say punish everyone.

I don't speed (excessively) nor do I drink myself stupid, but I object very much to lining up for a drink, only to be told that once I purchase a bottle of wine for my wife and daughter to share, I can't buy a beer for myself, all because a small percentage of dead beats can't control their booze.

It's wrong!

Ludwig, tailgating, reckless driving, burn outs, illegal passing, etc would all form evidence if captured on a cam Cordero or similar, however, speeding is a whole different issue as you need a calibrated speed monitor to prove that the comparison speed was accurate.

Another problem with speeding, is that you can't be booked for speeding, without a nominated speed, and as such if you are booked, and the alleged speed was guessed, you would have that thrown out of court.

Now while I agree with what you say, I am simply saying that the law is an ass sometimes and the cops would soon get sick of having their cases thrown out of court.

rehctub: What you are saying is that it would be better to take away that fast car, form law abiding drivers, simply because some dills can't help themselves.

That's not what I said at all. You are still playing the punishment game.

If the Maximum speed you can do on an open road anywhere in Australia is 130 kph then there is no need for a car that can do more than that speed to be allowed to be on Australian roads. I thought that was simple & easy enough to understand. If some law abiding driver wants to take their car over that speed then they ceases to be a Law Abiding Driver. don't they. Sheeech!

Excellent debate however Jayb is the only one that is on top of the point I was attempting to make.

Jayb last post nailed it in my opinion. Limiting the speed of a car that is driven by a law abiding individual does not limit that individual in any way. Law-abiding speeder is an oxymoron!

We have I would suggest two choices. Remove all speed limits or limit vehicles speed. The first would make the current situation a lot worse. As all individuals do not have the ability to control speed of their vehicles, either deliberately or inadvertently, the easiest option is to limit vehicle speed. The spin-off would be positive not just in safety but numerous areas.

Car manufactures are I believe culpable as they aid and abet the crime by producing the means. Julie Bishop a contributor to this forum clearly understands this as illustrated in my initial post. This is not aimed at Julie, she was merely a convenient vehicle (whose speed is limited no doubt by the party machine), nor is it a Blue, Red or Green issue but something all our law makers should address.

Below are a couple of links to current technology. Not the best or worst or the only so we don’t escalate the debate.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2006/10/7994/

http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/Safety-Features/Safety-Features-List/Intelligent-Speed-Assist-ISA/

<< …tailgating, reckless driving, burn outs, illegal passing, etc would all form evidence if captured on a cam Cordero or similar, however, speeding is a whole different issue >>

Rehctub, speeding is not a whole different issue when you are sitting on the speed limit and some twat comes up rapidly behind you. That’s when speeding affects you directly. You can certainly record that on a camcorder.

I am pleased that you can see that tailgating, etc, can be dealt with by using a camcorder. So then, don’t you think that the police should be encouraging this sort of thing?

I can’t see that cases would get thrown out of court too often. For one thing, when an offender is shown the vid of their dangerous driving, they are not likely to take it to court too often.

It might create quite a burden on the police to deal with, for a little while. But once the system is established and the would-be wank*rs get the message that it is not just the thin blue line that can nab them, the number of complaints with camcorder evidence will drop right away…. and the roads will be a much safer place.

Producer, yes we should be exploring technological improvements. But all of that stuff is some distance off in the future and it is uncertain as to how well it could actually work, and at what expense.

Road safety could be greatly improved very quickly, if we could just get our politicians and police to encourage community involvement, instead of doing precisely the opposite of effectively disempowering the public to assist, which I really do find totally and utterly disgusting.

Ludwig, I'm am your side mate, but you must understand, that ANY speeding offense must be recorded using a calibrated speed registering device.

In fact, each and every day a speed trap/gun is used, it has to be calibrated, and cars are not calibrated.

There is no such thing as being issued with a speeding fine of about 150k's, which is essentially what the case would be if captured via video, using a non calibrated speedo as a benchmark.

Even small things like fitting a car with different profile tyres can make the speedo inaccurate, or as was the case for me once, when a transfer case was rebuilt, they installed the speedometer pin in the wrong slot, giving a faulse reading.

My speedo read 80, when I was actually doing 100.

Don't get me wrong, i hate rat bags on roads just as much as you so although I support your theory, it's only speeding that would cause the problem.

You must also remember that doing 100 in a 40 zone is extremely dangerous, in fact, far more dangerous than 150 in a 100 zone, so do we limit cars to 40?

Now as far as technology goes, fit the car with a recording device if you wish, so speeds can be checked, but don't limit the cars as some owners like to take their cars to private events which involve high speeds.

I used to take my cars to Lakeside, it was great and in fact my insurance company encouraged the idea.

It all comes back to the fact that people in cars kill others, not cars, so the answer lies in harsher penalties for offenders, including crushing of vehicles, but don't punish good behavior just to stop bad.

Responsible people deserve their rights to own an unrestricted car, for what ever reason they choose.

rehctub: You must also remember that doing 100 in a 40 zone is extremely dangerous, in fact, far more dangerous than 150 in a 100 zone, so do we limit cars to 40?

so do we limit cars to 40?

That comment is a bit over the top & way left of the mark. You know dam well that's not what anyone means. That comment is somewhat childish.

& here we have one of rehctub Law Abiding Drivers.

200km/h in 50km/h zone: police officer charged

DateMarch 8, 2013 - 3:37PM David McCowen "The Age"

Rehcub, there is really very little variation within one’s speedometer between new and old tyres.

Practically all speedos read a bit faster than the true speed

I always have my GPS on while driving, which gives a more accurate reading of the speed that I am doing than the speedometer! And as a result of this I am intimately familiar with the error in my speedo at all speeds.

If the alleged offender challenges the accusation that they were speeding up behind and then tailgating someone who was sitting on the speed limit, after seeing a vid that shows them and shows the speedo in the car of the complainant, then they'd be unlikely to question it, I would think.

If they did, it would be a pretty simple thing for the police to calibrate that particular speedo.

So, camcorder evidence of a speeding vehicle coming up behind you while you are sitting on the speed limit, including views of your speedometer, should definitely comprise good hard evidence that would hold up in court, if need be.

Any difficulties in empowering the public to record evidence and lodge complaints about sh!t-headed drivers are much smaller than those involved with technological approaches of the sorts that Producer desires.

And they could surely be overcome in a much shorter timeframe... and at vastly less expense.

Sheesh, I PARTICULARLY hate it when you proof-read, spell-check, grammar-check and the proof-read.... and then proof-read again..............................................................................

And then post...........

And discover that the name of the person you are responding to has been wankified!! !!

Aaaarrrgh!!

Luddy old mate, unless you are one of these damn fools who drive around at 70Km/H in 80 & 100 limit areas, I can't understand your problem with tailgaters. In my area where it can be many kilometers between legal overtaking opportunities, I believe this sort of discourtesy should result in loss of licence. Fortunately it is rare.

I can not find any pleasure in driving a few Km/H more above the speed limit, so don't do it, but I also rarely dawdle, & thus cause offense to people who's lives are busier than mine. I can't remember when I was last tailgated.

When I was towing one of my kids show jumpers around, who was a bad traveler, I often drove considerably under the speed limit. In that circumstance I never found it difficult to pull over & let faster traffic through.

I did at one time find truck drivers regularly getting a bit close behind me. I realised I had not reinstalled the Triumph badge on the back, after a repaint job on my old TR. Once this was corrected, the problem stopped. They were only trying to find out what the car was.

Thus I find your your constant reference to tailgating rather strange.

Ok Ludwig, so what speed do the police charge the offending driver with, remembering, that simply speeding is not acceptable as evidence.

The prosecuting officer could hardly say, the offender was doing more than the speed limit, but not really sure how fast they were traveling.

It would be laughed out of court, don't you think.

BTW, calibrating is performed before the device is used, not after.

...& here we have one of rehctub Law Abiding Drivers.
So how is this my fault JAyb

Also, 100 in a 40 zone is far more dangerous than 150 on the open highway.

Rehctub, I disagree that such calibrated evidence is an essential prerequisite for the police to act on a complaint or for conviction to be achieved.

The police can charge people if they think they have committed an offence and the courts can convict people if the magistrate is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed.

Two main points:

Road safety could be vastly improved if the general public was empowered to help, and the police facilitated it fully, by telling us how to gather evidence and make complaints in the most effective manner and…

This could be done a million times more quickly and easily than the implementation of speed-limiting technology and other road-safety technological advances.

Again… and I can’t say this often enough or emphatically enough…. I couldn’t be more disgusted with the general attitude of the police towards my efforts to make a few complaints over the years about rank drivers. And I only ever made complaints about the very worst stuff that I was subjected to.

<< I find your constant reference to tailgating rather strange >>

Haz, my housemate who is also a self-confessed hoon, has often said the same sort of thing. He’s a great fan of yours by the way. He reckons you’re the Hoon-god of OLO!

I just put it down to those with hoonery in their blood not noticing or caring about risk factors and safety margins to anywhere near the same extent as someone who is conscious of these things and of striving to drive in a manner so as to minimise risk factors and maximise safety margins and desire other drivers do the same… and get a tad annoyed when some other drivers seem to have absolutely no regard for this.

Hey, I include travelling too closely to the vehicle in front within my definition of tailgating. So if you’ve got a fool three car-lengths behind you at 105kmh on the open highway, then that’s tailgating as far as I’m concerned.

So going by that somewhat broader definition of tailgating than you presumably have, would you still say that you never get tailgated…. or followed too closely?

Bear in mind that the recommended minimum following distance is 2 seconds in good conditions and more at night or on a wet road. 2 seconds equates to 10 car-lengths at 100kmh, 8 at 80, 6 at 60 etc.

Tailgating does seem to have improved somewhat in the last few years. Having just driven extensively in South Australia in urban and open-road areas over a three-week period, I found it to be remarkably infrequent… in stark contrast to Queensland.

Luddy old mate, I had an accident on the public road in 1959, & another on the race track in 1968. That being the case I think I can claim to adequately allow for risk factors when driving around.

Hell perhaps I am/was a god. Much of that was on interstate trips where we expected to average well over 70MPH. However most of my mates were doing it too, & we did not have accidents.

There is an old motor racing saying, "to finish first, first you have to finish". With the high cost of rebuilding damaged cars or broken mechanical bits, hoons did not last long. Yes I have come down Conrod straight at 170 MPH+ [272Km/H actually], within inches of another car, but I knew who was driving that other car. Both of us were driving quite carefully, intending to finish.

On our major expressways you will always find a larger gap in front of me, than behind. I like to have enough space to allow for a following drivers lack of attention, but I don't think they are tailgating, & they are mostly more experienced in commuting driving than I am.

I don't approve of our ridiculously low speed limits. If it was 150Km/H, granny next door would still drive into town at 80, & that is fine for her. However there is no reason competent drivers, prepared to concentrate on driving, should not be doing 150. After all that is no faster than we drove in the 60s, on much worse roads, & in much less capable cars.

It does seam that all our progress is backwards these days.

I get your drift Has been. You like me grew up in the old school. We more aware of our surroundings than they are today. Granted if you are city driving & used to it drivers do tend to move in & out of traffic effortlessly. Most drivers are considerate they know make a gap or close up then let things shake out after a merge is made. But there are a lot of pushy idiots who don't have any regard for other drivers. Those you have to look out for. Country drivers are easy to pick. They drive slower & leeway has to be given to them, for they know not what to do. Hoons are another thing, they think they have the right to drive as they like, anywhere they like, at any speed they like. They are a lot harder to predict, consequently, bingles occur. I won't say accidents.

Still why own a car that will do 265 if you are only allowed to do 100. Waste of money, fuel & it's just a status symbol for d!(# he@d$.

<< I don't approve of our ridiculously low speed limits >>

Me neither. But neither would I approve of a 150kmh on any open road!

A great deal of the time I think speed limits are too low, often absurdly so. It is a case, as rehctub points out, of us all paying for the vagaries of a few rank drivers.

If we could pull the d!ckheads into line, then I reckon we’d have a very good case for pushing for speed limits to be increased in probably 50% of all situations everywhere!

So Haz, as part of a campaign to get more sensible and less aggravating speed limits implemented, how about supporting my push for community policing?