Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Top ten reasons for traffic accidents compiled by a British insurance company: "excessive speed for the conditions" was number 8, the top 7 being "failure to judge other road users" doing something or being distracted ie. cell phones. Speed is not the issue -- it's just the easiest to actively police effectively and keep your metrics up.Adriano said..Kamikuza said..There was a study a while back that found it's not the speed the traffic's moving that's the issue, it's the differences in speed of individual vehicles -- everyone driving 120 is safer than some people driving 60 and others 100.Adriano said..Tonz said..
then you were not being totally aware of what was happening around you. I was taught 40 years ago, always be prepared for someone dumn to do something stupid and unexpected,
The police were doing their job, you and others were not prepared..
put yourself in their situation or yourself broken down on side of road and vehicles flying past you at 100 dont feel soory for you.
It doesn't matter how vigilant a driver is being in these situations. If the traffic speed is 110km/h and there is a bend in the road, a sudden deceleration of 70km/h is eventually going to end in accidents.
I would say driving past a stationary vehicle at speed would be safer than cars getting out of control and colliding around emergency vehicles.
It's only logical.
It all goes back to the tired old myth that speed alone causes accidents and not the overall circumstances.
Fancy that! A study ignored once more by the nutters who determine traffic infringement policy!
Yes. Still, the anti-speed nutters rule the nest. Most of the public still swallow the myths surrounding speed.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..Kamikuza said..Top ten reasons for traffic accidents compiled by a British insurance company: "excessive speed for the conditions" was number 8, the top 7 being "failure to judge other road users" doing something or being distracted ie. cell phones. Speed is not the issue -- it's just the easiest to actively police effectively and keep your metrics up.Adriano said..Kamikuza said..There was a study a while back that found it's not the speed the traffic's moving that's the issue, it's the differences in speed of individual vehicles -- everyone driving 120 is safer than some people driving 60 and others 100.Adriano said..Tonz said..
then you were not being totally aware of what was happening around you. I was taught 40 years ago, always be prepared for someone dumn to do something stupid and unexpected,
The police were doing their job, you and others were not prepared..
put yourself in their situation or yourself broken down on side of road and vehicles flying past you at 100 dont feel soory for you.
It doesn't matter how vigilant a driver is being in these situations. If the traffic speed is 110km/h and there is a bend in the road, a sudden deceleration of 70km/h is eventually going to end in accidents.
I would say driving past a stationary vehicle at speed would be safer than cars getting out of control and colliding around emergency vehicles.
It's only logical.
It all goes back to the tired old myth that speed alone causes accidents and not the overall circumstances.
Fancy that! A study ignored once more by the nutters who determine traffic infringement policy!
Yes. Still, the anti-speed nutters rule the nest. Most of the public still swallow the myths surrounding speed.
Adriano, How is the Audi going ? Which model do you have ?
Select to expand quoteactiomax said..
I saw one of those mobile speed camera cars today on footpath with the hazzard lights on so an orange light was going on roof.
The speed check sign said 80km .
Its not applicable to hazzard lights is it even if they are on the roof racks ?
Doesn't apply to orange lights, only red and blue. So I guess that means Ambulance, Police, and Fire Brigade.
I wonder if it's illegal for others to have those colours of flashing lights?
