Cars & Transportation Slow Down, Speed Kills

[rdhopkins2]

Shocking Ferrari crash caught on film

Can't believe this guy-what was he thinking. What an absolute fool.
Even more sadly, he's not the only one to pay for his stupidity.

 

[Quivorir]

Its ****ing shit how ********s like this take others life, even worse when they survive it.(I know the driver died in this case)

 

[SnakePlisskin]

Horrible just horrible , so many hoons on our roads and they all think it's funny until its too late .

 

[Igloo]

That is amazing footage. What are the odds of that happening.

Very sad thing to happen, and unfortunately there are a large amount of w***ers on the road.

 

[kanye_best]

Wow, how lucky would the guy with the dashcam feel????

Absolutely tragic that this idiot took someone else's life.

 

[theboxmike]

Sigh...so this makes it a justification to put all speed limits 30 in the city and 100 on freeways?

This idiot would of done it anywhere, it's just unforgivable he had to take someone with him.

 

[shurg123]

Horrible just horrible , so many hoons on our roads and they all think it's funny until its too late .

It happened in Singapore a week or so ago, not sure what it has to do with our roads . Not sure if there've been any fatalities in Australia caused by some rich muppet in a Ferrari running a redlight at 200km/h. Funny how none of the posts so far mention the presence of alcohol in the driver's blood, which more than likely contributed to the speed at which he was driving.

[YOUTUBE]ouegmRIvoeQ[/YOUTUBE]

Heaps of openly racist comments against the Chinese by the Singaporeans on most of the videos of the incident. But I thought Australia was the most racist country in the world?

Sigh...so this makes it a justification to put all speed limits 30 in the city and 100 on freeways?

This idiot would of done it anywhere, it's just unforgivable he had to take someone with him.

That's the sad reality, no matter what they make the speed limits, people have free will and these psychopaths will keep on endangering others. Somehow, the idiot legislators think punishing someone going at 106km/h on an empty 5-lane freeway in a late model car will help save lives.

 

[SnakePlisskin]

Yeah that's right our roads , and you don't need a Ferrari to do that kind of damage smartarse.

 

[shurg123]

All I ever see on our roads are traffic jams. Barely have enough time to hit the limit before the next red light most of the time.

 

[DREAM TEAM BUFF]

Very horrible.

They think it is a big joke but they are so wrong.

 

[daicos4ever]

That's the sad reality, no matter what they make the speed limits, people have free will and these psychopaths will keep on endangering others. Somehow, the idiot legislators think punishing someone going at 106km/h on an empty 5-lane freeway in a late model car will help save lives.

You shouldn't be doing 106km/h in a 100km/h zone, no matter the circumstances. It's a speed limit, not a speed recommendation.

 

[Simple Jack]

You shouldn't be doing 106km/h in a 100km/h zone, no matter the circumstances. It's a speed limit, not a speed recommendation.

Good to see you can correctly recite the doctrine.

Speeding is irrelevant. DANGEROUS DRIVING is the problem.

The Autobahns in Germany have no speed limits (because arbitary limits are a shit lazy way of trying to acheive the 'safety' outcome). However, things like tailgating and driving slow in the fast lane/fast in the slow lane are heavily policed.

Because they are targetting the cause, not the symptom.

That Ferrari driver was a hazard on the road because he was driving dangerously, running a red and going 180km/h in the city is terrible, and shockingly bad for the family of the innocent victims.

Doing 65 in a 60 zone when the conditions allow does not endager safety. Doing 59 in a 60 zone when conditions do not allow it, while technically 'legal', DOES endager safety.

Consider this situation, a year or two ago Kings way was changed from 70 to 60 . Does that mean that at 11:59PM Tuesday 70 was a safe speed but then at 12:01AM Wednesday it makes you a menace to society?
No? Sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is.

Say it with me kids "Speeding is irrelevant, dangerous driving is THE problem."


Btw, excessive speeding IS dangerous driving, even minor speeding (or obeying the speed limit) CAN be dangerous. Only when it becomes dangerous does it become relevant.

 

[shurg123]

Good to see you can correctly recite the doctrine.

Speeding is irrelevant. DANGEROUS DRIVING is the problem.

The Autobahns in Germany have no speed limits (because arbitary limits are a shit lazy way of trying to acheive the 'safety' outcome). However, things like tailgating and driving slow in the fast lane/fast in the slow lane are heavily policed.

Because they are targetting the cause, not the symptom.

That Ferrari driver was a hazard on the road because he was driving dangerously, running a red and going 180km/h in the city is terrible, and shockingly bad for the family of the innocent victims.

Doing 65 in a 60 zone when the conditions allow does not endager safety. Doing 59 in a 60 zone when conditions do not allow it, while technically 'legal', DOES endager safety.

Consider this situation, a year or two ago Kings way was changed from 70 to 60 . Does that mean that at 11:59PM Tuesday 70 was a safe speed but then at 12:01AM Wednesday it makes you a menace to society?
No? Sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is.

Say it with me kids "Speeding is irrelevant, dangerous driving is THE problem."


Btw, excessive speeding IS dangerous driving, even minor speeding (or obeying the speed limit) CAN be dangerous. Only when it becomes dangerous does it become relevant.

Spot on.

[YOUTUBE]xj48BYJ6FJY[/YOUTUBE]

Australian's need to learn how to drive to the conditions. If you ask your average stupid/brainwashed Aussie motorist who is driving more dangerously in the above video, they would get the answer wrong. The left (right here) lane on a freeway should always be kept clear unless overtaking, the slower cars travelling in the lane and blocking it while not overtaking are the ones driving dangerously, not the car being filmed. Shame that law is rarely enforced over here. At least in Germany the motorists have the courtesy to move back into the proper lane instead of road-raging.

 

[daicos4ever]

Good to see you can correctly recite the doctrine.

Speeding is irrelevant. DANGEROUS DRIVING is the problem.

Speeding is dangerous driving, there are prescribed speed limits for a reason.

The Autobahns in Germany have no speed limits (because arbitary limits are a shit lazy way of trying to acheive the 'safety' outcome). However, things like tailgating and driving slow in the fast lane/fast in the slow lane are heavily policed.

Because they are targetting the cause, not the symptom.

That's all well and good, that's the law in Germany. Victoria/Australia is not Germany. For the record, I have driven on an Autobahn.

The issues you mentioned are dangerous at any speed and are policed here accordingly.

That Ferrari driver was a hazard on the road because he was driving dangerously, running a red and going 180km/h in the city is terrible, and shockingly bad for the family of the innocent victims.

Agreed, and sadly he is not alone in this world. There is a difference between doing 5km/h over and 100km/h, but that's obvious.

I have seen a bloke in a porsche doing at least 150 on Alexandra Ave, along the tan route. Thankfully he got pulled over further along City Rd and hopefully his car got crushing into a cube for his troubles.

Doing 65 in a 60 zone when the conditions allow does not endager safety. Doing 59 in a 60 zone when conditions do not allow it, while technically 'legal', DOES endager safety.

Doing 65 in a 60 does endanger safety. Most 60 zones are main roads that share between cars, vans, tracks, bikes, trams, bicycles, pedestrians. Usually 60 zones will be busy with traffic. How do you know a parked car won't just pull out in front of you? The car ahead won't suddenly pull up and indicate right at the last second? A pedestrian won't just step into your path? If you're doing 65 your reaction time will be significantly diminished and an "accident" is far more likely than say, doing 59 as you say.

As I said, they are speed limits, and there are reasons there are financial penalties for breaking them.

And I ask you this, what benefit is it to you if you are driving at 65 instead of 59, or 55. Will you arrive at your destination a minute sooner? Is that worth it?

Consider this situation, a year or two ago Kings way was changed from 70 to 60 . Does that mean that at 11:59PM Tuesday 70 was a safe speed but then at 12:01AM Wednesday it makes you a menace to society?
No? Sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is.

I don't think there is any reason why Kings Way should be 60 and Dandenong Rd 70, but most of the time when you're driving on Kings Way you won't be going faster than 40 anyway.

Say it with me kids "Speeding is irrelevant, dangerous driving is THE problem."


Btw, excessive speeding IS dangerous driving, even minor speeding (or obeying the speed limit) CAN be dangerous. Only when it becomes dangerous does it become relevant.

Speeding is relevant, and as I have said, it's a speed limit. Driving above the limit is dangerous in every sense, no matter how arbitary you think the limit is.

For the record, I have no vested interest in enforcing traffic laws, and I haven't got a perfect driving record (I doubt many people do). But it always bemuses me when people whinge because they were just a little bit over, when they shouldn't be above the limit at all, in any circumstance.

 

[shurg123]

Speeding is dangerous driving, there are prescribed speed limits for a reason.



That's all well and good, that's the law in Germany. Victoria/Australia is not Germany. For the record, I have driven on an Autobahn.

The issues you mentioned are dangerous at any speed and are policed here accordingly.



Agreed, and sadly he is not alone in this world. There is a difference between doing 5km/h over and 100km/h, but that's obvious.

I have seen a bloke in a porsche doing at least 150 on Alexandra Ave, along the tan route. Thankfully he got pulled over further along City Rd and hopefully his car got crushing into a cube for his troubles.





Doing 65 in a 60 does endanger safety. Most 60 zones are main roads that share between cars, vans, tracks, bikes, trams, bicycles, pedestrians. Usually 60 zones will be busy with traffic. How do you know a parked car won't just pull out in front of you? The car ahead won't suddenly pull up and indicate right at the last second? A pedestrian won't just step into your path? If you're doing 65 your reaction time will be significantly diminished and an "accident" is far more likely than say, doing 59 as you say.

As I said, they are speed limits, and there are reasons there are financial penalties for breaking them.

And I ask you this, what benefit is it to you if you are driving at 65 instead of 59, or 55. Will you arrive at your destination a minute sooner? Is that worth it?




I don't think there is any reason why Kings Way should be 60 and Dandenong Rd 70, but most of the time when you're driving on Kings Way you won't be going faster than 40 anyway.




Speeding is relevant, and as I have said, it's a speed limit. Driving above the limit is dangerous in every sense, no matter how arbitary you think the limit is.

For the record, I have no vested interest in enforcing traffic laws, and I haven't got a perfect driving record (I doubt many people do). But it always bemuses me when people whinge because they were just a little bit over, when they shouldn't be above the limit at all, in any circumstance.

Ok so you're saying the 'limit' dictates the level of safety. Explain to me how going 106 km/h on the 5-lane Eastern Freeway with good visibility and no traffic on a sunny day is any less safe than doing 99 km/h on a 2-lane, curving country freeway on a rainy, foggy day with low visibility? You sound like the sort of person to be wary of when driving, someone who doesn't understand how to drive to the conditions and believes driving above or below the limit, regardless of the conditions (road size, traffic, weather), is what dictates safe driving. They really need to make it harder to get a license here.

 

[daicos4ever]

Ok so you're saying the 'limit' dictates the level of safety. Explain to me how going 106 km/h on the 5-lane Eastern Freeway with good visibility and no traffic on a sunny day is any less safe than doing 99 km/h on a 2-lane, curving country freeway on a rainy, foggy day with low visibility? You sound like the sort of person to be wary of when driving, someone who doesn't understand how to drive to the conditions and believes driving above or below the limit, regardless of the conditions (road size, traffic, weather), is what dictates safe driving. They really need to make it harder to get a license here.

I never argued the driving to conditions point, because it's relevant and sensible. But it's not ok to drive over the limit, that's why there is a limit.

For example, you are on a two lane country highway with a 100km/h speed limit. To you, is it ok to overtake a car in front of you that is doing 99? Do you think it's dangerous that to overtake the car in an efficient manner, you will have to break the speed limit and endanger potential traffic in the oncoming lane? Or is it driving to the conditions, because the car in front is driving at 1km/h under the limit, and it's a clear, sunny day, and you can safely drive at 105/110/115 because you're a good driver?

Feel free to drive as you dictate the conditions allow, and I'll drive in a safe, law-abiding manner. We shall see who a) holds our licence (not license) longer, and b) causes less incidents.

 

[Simple Jack]

Speeding is dangerous driving, there are prescribed speed limits for a reason.

All I need to do is go back to the Kings Way example. Are you telling me that someone travelling at a 'safe' 70 at 11:59:59 suddenly becomes unsafe one second later because of the limit change?

No rational person could believe that.

That's all well and good, that's the law in Germany. Victoria/Australia is not Germany. For the record, I have driven on an Autobahn.

Correct it isn't. But considering the Autobahns have a lower accident rate than Australight highways, maybe it's worth looking into a different system.

The issues you mentioned are dangerous at any speed and are policed here accordingly.

They really, really aren't. Tailgating is rife in Melbourne, and is not policed at all.

Agreed, and sadly he is not alone in this world. There is a difference between doing 5km/h over and 100km/h, but that's obvious.

I have seen a bloke in a porsche doing at least 150 on Alexandra Ave, along the tan route. Thankfully he got pulled over further along City Rd and hopefully his car got crushing into a cube for his troubles.

Yep, and the fact that he was exceeding some arbitary limit doesn't cause him to be unsafe. The fact he was driving at a dangerous (illegal != dangerous) speed is the problem.

Doing 65 in a 60 does endanger safety. Most 60 zones are main roads that share between cars, vans, tracks, bikes, trams, bicycles, pedestrians. Usually 60 zones will be busy with traffic. How do you know a parked car won't just pull out in front of you? The car ahead won't suddenly pull up and indicate right at the last second? A pedestrian won't just step into your path? If you're doing 65 your reaction time will be significantly diminished and an "accident" is far more likely than say, doing 59 as you say.

As I said, they are speed limits, and there are reasons there are financial penalties for breaking them.

And I ask you this, what benefit is it to you if you are driving at 65 instead of 59, or 55. Will you arrive at your destination a minute sooner? Is that worth it?

If any of those things happen doing 60 in a 60 zone it is going to be dangerous. Why not do 50 to be safe? why not 40, 30, 20, 10, hell if we all just went around at 5km/h it pretty much takes away any possibility of any pedestrians etc getting killed.

I don't think there is any reason why Kings Way should be 60 and Dandenong Rd 70, but most of the time when you're driving on Kings Way you won't be going faster than 40 anyway.

Yeah Kings Way is a terrible road, but I was using it to make a point. Substitute any other speed change for the same effect.

Speeding is relevant, and as I have said, it's a speed limit. Driving above the limit is dangerous in every sense, no matter how arbitary you think the limit is.

Yes it's a speed limit. It is arbitary. But that is a ridiculous statement. You suffer from the same problem as pretty much the rest of the TAC ads generation. You've had 'exceeding the limit = evil' drummed into you so hard that you automatically assume 'not exceeding the limit = safe'.

That assumption alone is FAR more dangerous than speeding and is half the bloody problem.

Driving safely has to be the main goal for everyone, not following a set of rules that don't even come close to being appropriate for the highly dynamic enviroment of driving.

For the record, I have no vested interest in enforcing traffic laws, and I haven't got a perfect driving record (I doubt many people do). But it always bemuses me when people whinge because they were just a little bit over, when they shouldn't be above the limit at all, in any circumstance.

I do. (Although I did get a parking ticket once, but that's not technically 'driving'.)

Doesn't mean the laws aren't lazy, stupid and totally missing the point.

 

[theboxmike]

You shouldn't be doing 106km/h in a 100km/h zone, no matter the circumstances. It's a speed limit, not a speed recommendation.

You do realise that those speeds were introduced in the 20th century back when cars would struggle to break from those speeds.

Modern cars are easily capable of so much more.

 

[theboxmike]

Good to see you can correctly recite the doctrine.

Speeding is irrelevant. DANGEROUS DRIVING is the problem.

The Autobahns in Germany have no speed limits (because arbitary limits are a shit lazy way of trying to acheive the 'safety' outcome). However, things like tailgating and driving slow in the fast lane/fast in the slow lane are heavily policed.

Because they are targetting the cause, not the symptom.

That Ferrari driver was a hazard on the road because he was driving dangerously, running a red and going 180km/h in the city is terrible, and shockingly bad for the family of the innocent victims.

Doing 65 in a 60 zone when the conditions allow does not endager safety. Doing 59 in a 60 zone when conditions do not allow it, while technically 'legal', DOES endager safety.

Consider this situation, a year or two ago Kings way was changed from 70 to 60 . Does that mean that at 11:59PM Tuesday 70 was a safe speed but then at 12:01AM Wednesday it makes you a menace to society?
No? Sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is.

Say it with me kids "Speeding is irrelevant, dangerous driving is THE problem."


Btw, excessive speeding IS dangerous driving, even minor speeding (or obeying the speed limit) CAN be dangerous. Only when it becomes dangerous does it become relevant.

Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Rod Stroker]

It happened just around the corner from my place. Horrible, horrible accident.

 

[shurg123]

I never argued the driving to conditions point, because it's relevant and sensible. But it's not ok to drive over the limit, that's why there is a limit.

For example, you are on a two lane country highway with a 100km/h speed limit. To you, is it ok to overtake a car in front of you that is doing 99? Do you think it's dangerous that to overtake the car in an efficient manner, you will have to break the speed limit and endanger potential traffic in the oncoming lane? Or is it driving to the conditions, because the car in front is driving at 1km/h under the limit, and it's a clear, sunny day, and you can safely drive at 105/110/115 because you're a good driver?

Feel free to drive as you dictate the conditions allow, and I'll drive in a safe, law-abiding manner. We shall see who a) holds our licence (not license) longer, and b) causes less incidents.

That's the thing. The 100 km/h limit is arbitrary. Are you contending that driving at 105 km/h is significantly more dangerous than driving at 100 km/h? In that case, driving at 100 km/h is also significantly more dangerous than driving at 95 km/h. Why not just drive at 95 km/h at all times if you're so worried about safety? Why not 90 km/h? I'd much rather share the road with an experienced driver who knows how to drive to the conditions than an inexperienced one who thinks the speed limit is the be-all and end-all of road safety.

Clearly, you don't understand what driving to the conditions is all about if you think doing over 100km/h on an empty, 5-lane freeway on a sunny day is more dangerous than doing 95 km/h on a 2-lane country road in the rain.

'Good' and 'bad' driving is all relative. Someone who has done an advanced drivers course or defensive driving course would naturally be a better driver than someone who hasn't. They would also find it easier to get their head around the fact that 'dangerous driving' in general is far more damaging that 'speeding', which is an abstract concept defined by an arbitrary limit.

The ultimate debunking of the speed limit myth though is in the discretion Highway Patrol officers have in deciding whether to give out a ticket or not. I've driven past marked police cars on the freeway at 105-110km/h and they don't even give you a second thought. They'd be much more likely to stop you if you were swerving between lanes and tailgating at 95 km/h. This is why police presence on the roads is far more welcome and effective than revenue-cameras.

One final point, as another poster mentioned, the limits were devised a long time ago and were based on how well an average car could brake back then. Nowadays cars are far more manoeuvrable and can slow down and speed up far more quickly. A rather extreme example would be the Pagani Zonda, which can do 200km/h-0km/h in 4 seconds flat, over a shorter distance that a car from the 70s would take to go from 100km/h-0km/h.

 

[The Passenger]

interesting... last night driving on souther cross drive in sydney, which i've mentioned on this forum several times, i saw yet another crazy display of driving...

guy driving a hired car... i would reckon he was late for a pickup at the airport... darting from the right hand lane through the centre lane through the left lane and back again several times through traffic (not heavy, but was about nonetheless. was 9pm at night).... he was doing at least 110km/h (80k limit), but probably more, and did not use his indicator on one single occasion.... was a ****ing recipe for disaster....

 

[The Passenger]

simple jack has it right.... there are many things which contribute to dangerous driving....

for mine tailgating and constant lane changes are far bigger dangers than just going over the speed limit... i've also noticed lately a fairly big spike in people driving at night with no lights on...

 

[BORK]

Good to see you can correctly recite the doctrine.

Speeding is irrelevant. DANGEROUS DRIVING is the problem.

The Autobahns in Germany have no speed limits (because arbitary limits are a shit lazy way of trying to acheive the 'safety' outcome). However, things like tailgating and driving slow in the fast lane/fast in the slow lane are heavily policed.

Because they are targetting the cause, not the symptom.

That Ferrari driver was a hazard on the road because he was driving dangerously, running a red and going 180km/h in the city is terrible, and shockingly bad for the family of the innocent victims.

Doing 65 in a 60 zone when the conditions allow does not endager safety. Doing 59 in a 60 zone when conditions do not allow it, while technically 'legal', DOES endager safety.

Consider this situation, a year or two ago Kings way was changed from 70 to 60 . Does that mean that at 11:59PM Tuesday 70 was a safe speed but then at 12:01AM Wednesday it makes you a menace to society?
No? Sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is.

Say it with me kids "Speeding is irrelevant, dangerous driving is THE problem."


Btw, excessive speeding IS dangerous driving, even minor speeding (or obeying the speed limit) CAN be dangerous. Only when it becomes dangerous does it become relevant.

THANKYOU A post with reasoning and critical thought rather than the rehashing of propaganda.

 

[BORK]

I never argued the driving to conditions point, because it's relevant and sensible. But it's not ok to drive over the limit, that's why there is a limit.

For example, you are on a two lane country highway with a 100km/h speed limit. To you, is it ok to overtake a car in front of you that is doing 99? Do you think it's dangerous that to overtake the car in an efficient manner, you will have to break the speed limit and endanger potential traffic in the oncoming lane? Or is it driving to the conditions, because the car in front is driving at 1km/h under the limit, and it's a clear, sunny day, and you can safely drive at 105/110/115 because you're a good driver?

Feel free to drive as you dictate the conditions allow, and I'll drive in a safe, law-abiding manner. We shall see who a) holds our licence (not license) longer, and b) causes less incidents.

You seem like the kind of person who is not aware that a car travelling at 70kph in good conditions in a multi lane 80kph zone road in mildly congested traffic is more dangerous to others than a vehicle travelling at 85kph that breaks free from the congestion. The 70kph car being a hazard that others have to move around. You seem to lack critical thought if you think 100 percent that technically law abiding = safe and that argument is solid?

I really do not want to seem like I am throwing crap on you but I would feel much safer and prefer to be in the company of Simple Jack on the road than you.