JT>> You're getting old Bob. (couldn't resist that stab)

BL> No, it's true. I can even drive at 50K in a 50K limit. It
BL> sort-of turns your awareness down. I don't know how it afects
BL> other people, but when I drove at 80K (normal in a 60K limit) I
BL> was alert and watched everything. Now, at 60K (or 70, 90,
BL> whatever they post) I just drift along half-asleep.

DD> I whole heartedly agree. There is no stimulus driving at the
DD> speed limit, so the brain goes into stand-by mode. You still
DD> squash the kid even though you were only doing 50kph. [...]

 I don't usually squash kids, even half-asleep at the wheel.

 I think that each driver has his own level of "acceptable-risk" and
drives according to that, at whatever speed. If you drive slow,
you turn off because the risk is bugger-all. Young hoons accept high
risk and silly old farts don't understand the concept of risk at all.
Dropping the speed limit can work, but only because the final impact
speed is less - not the way that RBT got rid of drunks.   What sets
the acceptable-risk is a combination of many things, including skill
and awareness. Drinking raises the acceptable-risk level, but it also
reduces skill, and awareness.

 I think we both agree that a lower speed does roughly the same...

JT>> I love the "there's no such thing as safe speeding" cry. True,
JT>> the only safe speed is 0. You can't hit anything if you're not
JT>> moving.

BL> Unless a truck runs up your arse.

DD> It was him speeding that time.

 Depends on the size of the truck...even a slow truck up your arse
can be painful.

DD> If exceeding the speed limit is so bloody dangerous, then
DD> increase the limit to 320Kph. Very few would exceed it, and
DD> we'd all be safe. 

 Can you run that logic past me once again? It seems to make sense,
and that worries me.

DD> Better still, follow the NT's lead and have no open road limit.
DD> The road deaths up there don't reflect the "speed kills" dogma.

 Unfortunately, the NT has the highest death rate, but it's probably
something to do with the size of the beer bottles.

 It's interesting when you get old. I can remember when Holdens had a
top speed of 75 mph and were death traps at that speed. I can remember
drum brakes that only worked once... and then faded. In those days
there was no open-road speed limit and the death rate was 3-times what
it is now. It had nothing to do with speed limits or drivers... just
cars.

 Cars have improved out of sight. I can still remember the first time
I did a crash-stop in the Skyline. "Oh, shit!" I thought, "there goes
the new car." I was used to a Datsun 180B but the Skyline just
stopped. I was stunned. The discs just stopped with plenty to spare, 
so I practised late braking until I found the new limit, and drove on
that. Every time I brake, I look in the rear vision mirror to see
what's behind me. That was 16-years ago! God knows what a *modern* car
is like with ABS.

 But the mystery is why they make the cars so fast. The Skyline does
200K (125 mph) and I've only run it flat out *once.* On the highway, a
top speed of 160K would be plenty, so long as it cruises at 120K (like
the old 180B). Now, even little Korean shitboxes do 200K...

 If the pollies are serious about safety and speed, why not limit
cars to 160K? Or like they did with bikes in the 60s... tax the shit
out of cars over a certain power/weight?

 Personally, I think it's a waste of time trying to change drivers. A
good driver (measured as no accidents) is always going to drive
safely, and a fuckwit is always going to be dangerous, as *whatever*
speed. The answer is to limit the car itself...big brakes, no power. 

Regards,
Bob

  




--- BQWK Alpha 0.5