> Bullshit! I thought, so I adjourned to the back room and Newton's
> Laws... and they're right. At the point where the car at 60 just
> stops, the one at 65 really is doing 27K. Crunch! You can't argue
> with physicas and Newton.

JT> The laws of physics are right, but as you've found out, in the
JT> "right" circumstances, it can be fatal. How a normal person
JT> gets themselves into this "right" situation on the other hand
JT> is a totally different story.

 I've been watching that commercial more closely. Did you see that
they've nailed wooden slats under the semi to stop the "safe" car
going underneath?

JT> Much like the teenager speeding at 70 to get to McDonalds
JT> faster. He gets clipped on the rear quarter by a car trying to
JT> turn in, and ends up against a pole. Too bad that doesn't
JT> happen in real life. They say "Don't try this at home, this has
JT> been performed under tight supervision" is exactly right. The
JT> circumstances have been so tightly controlled, that it will
JT> never happen in real life.

 I don'tthink that one convinced anyone. This new one is *really*
clever. Of course, most people won't fire up the old Newton's Laws to
discover that the numbers they quote are actually correct.

 I always though the Macdonalds one would have had more impact (sorry
abotu the pun) if the dork had swerved to avoid the car coming out and
then hit a little old lady in a Volvo, head-on. If they needed the
psychological impact of "I just killed me little bruvver" they could
have put his muvver in the Volvo. Then he coudl stagger out of the
wreck look in the Volvo and scream "Mum!". For extra emotion, he could
disembowel himself on the spot and run screamign down the street with
his intestines dragging...

 Gee! I ought to write these RTA commercials. It sounds like fun.

> It looks to me like they're getting ready to make this silly 50K
> limit the standard... down from the more sensible 60K. Dr
> Goebbels rides again. They used to call it propaganda, now it's
> spin.

JT> It's been done. There are streets in North Sydney that are
JT> classed as 40 (full time), and one has gone down to 10.

 It's 50K around here too... but I mean a *general* 50K limit.

 Before we metricked, the limit was 30 mph and that's 48 kmph. They
put it up to 35mph (56 kmph) and then when metrics came in, 60 kmph.

> BTW, my tip for the next spin is old drivers. They'll be telling
> us how dangerous 70 yo's are next.

JT> The reason for this is statistics. At about 65, the _average_
JT> driver is at about the same risk of an accident as an 18 YO. As
JT> you get older, the statistics get worse.

 That's not true, John... it's more fiddling of statistics.

 The risk *per kilometre* increases, but older drivers do 10-times
less kilometres. The risk *per-person* over 70 (not 65, btw, I've
never seen stats for 65) is 4-times *less* than 18-25 and that;'s
hardly different from 25-70.

 How on earth can they discriminate against a person when the risk
per person is less? I'm waitign for a rich old bastard to take this to
the High Court and really screw the RTA and insurance companies.

JT> But again, it's all statistics and bullshit. You go in however
JT> every often for the test, and prove that you're still within
JT> their definintion of "good enough".

 I object to this, too. The greatest risk is 18-25. Why not test
this age group every year, the same as wrinklies? How can we tolerate
different laaws for different people? Can you imagine the scream if we
tested Abos every year because someone made up false stats on Abos?

 The law affects *individuals* and we must be treated as individuals
under the Law, no matter how old, how young, sex, poofter, Abo, Jew,
whatever. Anything else is discrimination. As soon as some politician
starts talking about "public safety" or the "common
good" then it is
time to lynch the bastard before he becomes Hitler again.

 I believe in reincarnation, and these Nazi bastards are coming back!

BTW, I have a theory on young drivers and per-kilometre accidents,
dredged from my own memory as a hoon. I insist that people should be
treated equally, but kilometres are not equal.

 The average driver does about 20-40,000Km a year, but most of that
is on a main road going to work, and driving along in peak traffic is
not dangerous. The drivers are all pros, they do the same thing every
day and they know what to expect. They have minor dingles.

 The other high-K drivers are young. They take trips, they drive back
and forth with mates, to tech or disco at night, and nearly *all* of
those K's are especially dangerous... open highways at speed, side
streets, night driving, distracted. Most of the young-Ks are high risk
conditions.

 Oldies (70+) on the other hand do very few K's (2-4,000K PA) hardly
ever at night, but hardly ever on the highway either. Their routes are
the same as the young, side streets in the middle of the day mixed up
with vans and trucks moving too fast, mothers driving kids to school,
shopping. Like the young hoons, the oldie-K's are high-risk.     

Regards,
Bob

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5