THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR.
AUTHOR COMMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN REMOVED.
ANY INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE AUTHOR HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM OTHER COMMENTS.
Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
Kent Holloway
June 23, 2005 at 10:52
Driver attitude is a big problem. But not just from the inattentive.
Xxxx, in you previous article you mentioned that you drive at 110km/h or higher on the 100km/h limited Bridport Main Rd. What makes you the expert on road construction?
Speed Limits are for all drivers. I do hope you will not complain if/when you get pinged for these infringements.
Dave Groves
June 23, 2005 at 08:24
I heartily agree that lowering the speed limit is not the solution to the problem.
Young drivers are often full of beans and feel indestructible (I was young once).
Both our children have gone through advanced driver training at Oran Park and Symmons Plains. They also learned handling skills with go karts at Eastern Creek.
This doesn’t mean they won’t get into strife, but touch wood; it will give them the skills to help avoid problems.
Our driving instruction to obtain a licence is pathetic. As long as students can complete a three point turn and do a reverse park without hitting the gutter they are through.
What we really need is comprehensive driver training from go to whoa.
Education and the correct attitude will help ensure safety on our roads.
Peter Franklin
June 23, 2005 at 11:18
Quite a number of roads, or extensive sections of roads, are not suitable for 100km/h and it makes sense to me to sign these for a limit that matches the type of road.
A lower speed in these circumstances must make roads safer for users and should reduce the level of incidents, whether minor or serious.
phill Parsons
June 24, 2005 at 07:14
Now here’s a worry for the government.
Recent research shows the loss of cognitive function prior to the onset of senile dementia reduces the ability of drivers markedly.
The age classes of those involved in accidents may be indicative. Insurers certainly see under 25s as a risk.
A cognitive function test for licensing including renewals would assess abilities. One hopes that is either in place or under development.
Not popular with the older voter though.
I hope Xxxx keeps on with his recording or the government releases a comprehensive study showing that it was the set speed limit and not the disobedient driver or another cause of accidents leading to injury or fatality.
Injury has a high cost, medical expenses and rehabilitation. The lower the speed perhaps the lesser the injuries and that is the reason why htis policy is popular, not the assertion about fatalities.
Reducing the speed limit on the national highway system does not say a lot about car, tyre or road design. It must leave those engineers wondering why they spent so many hours making improvements in their respective fields only to find a reduced speed was all that was needed.