|
Originally Posted by Panda
I don't know, any distraction is still a distraction.
If you take your eyes off the road to check your speed, answer the mobile, grab a drink / feed, change the radio station, talk to the kids in the back seat.....in short ANYTHING, you are not paying attention to the road. The road is where you need to be looking, that's where the dangerous stuff is.
I know exactly where my speedo is, i know exactly where the 60 70 80 100 are, I need only glance at it, its marginally longer than blinking. Those other scenarios are covered by your obligation on the road. Nice straw man though.
Instead of driving to an arbitary speed limit, we should all be driving to the conditions that can affect our safety -
- road surface / quality
- traffic density
- weather conditions
- wildlife
- vehicle condition
This is all very dandy. If we dont have limits, you choose what you drive at given your conditions, interesting concept, you like anarchy? Do you trust everyone youve ever known to make that decision? Because that would be the scenario. I dont. A limit is set because it must be, there are too many variables without regulation (every individual on the road is making their own decision). Ive met people who I wouldnt trust to own a pet, let alone determine their limits. I understand it on NT open roads, but not the busy highways linking other capitals. Im not saying 130 wouldnt be better, but thats not the point, the camera would just click at 130 then, and we'd discussing that line in the sand. Imagine the guy/lady who is running late, despite the rain, they push that little bit, because they can. That is where they determined their limit to be. How would you enforce a breach, how would you determine it, an accident is the catalyst for fines? Despite bing a sad event, thats their problem, and if they kill themselves thats just bad luck. But what about the family they kill, who determined the speed at an appropriate level?
We've all heard the stories of 'this bloke' who stuck to the 100km/h speed limit in torrential rain or heavy fog. If he were driving to the conditions he would have slowed down a bit, allowed a greater seperation between him and the preceding car etc etc..
This is the guy who will drive much quicker if allowed to, despite limited ability, or he wont change at all. I drive at the limit, yet in the heavy Qld rain, I slow down. He is also the guy who in heavy traffic accelerates close behind the car in front and jumps on his brakes late, causing the imbecile behind him to do the same, chain reactions. I however, just let them pull away from me and move along at a steady pace, then slow if need be, any car behind me has plenty of warning. I also watch cars several ahead of the one directly in front, so I know I need to slow before the car in front touches his brake, Im already slowing down before he even realises he needs to. That happens all the time. So the 'speed conditioning' theory isnt universal. Its just an explanation of certain individuals behavior. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, its not simply education, or enforcement, thats part of a package, the key is attitude adjustment.
It's what I remember about the Northern Territory cruise in 2005, just drive to the conditions. It was such a relief to be allowed to THINK about what the safe speed was, not have to READ what somebody elses opinion of safe speed was. Nobody stuck to any set speed, it varied constantly as the conditions varied. Sure, everyone gave it a blast to 200+, but once we got that out of our systems everyone settled back down to a realistic speed. The cruise went so smoothly, everyone was relaxed (no frustration) and wide awake (no fatigue) Sounds like a nice cruise.
There is so much more to driving safely than sticking to the speed limit. No argument. But it is a central variable of it.
Panda
|
07-01-2007, 01:32 AM
Threaded Mode