NotWal said...

evlPanda said...

Perhaps they could throw some money at a scare campaign.

"Your child is n times more likely to die in a car crash than from taking ecstacy."

You're full of good ideas EP aren't you. Maybe we'll see you in parliament one day.
That's a truly useful tip about the Renault Migane too. I wonder if any other small cars score the 5 star rating.

I'm kinda freaking out I wrote that now. It's true, but a tad hardcore.

However road deaths will happen when people drive with the wrong attitude.

This is the problem. You can drive safely at 140KM/H in the country, even late at night over the Harbour Bridge for example. At the same time you can very easily be driving very dangerously, tailgaiting, not paying attention, wet weather, driveways, side roads, etc etc etc doing only 50 in a 60 zone.

It is, of course, and I accept this, easier to police a speed than an attitude.

Perhaps better training, defensive driver courses and the like are needed to get a licence.

My parents used to teach me defensive driving habits since I can remember. I still look both ways before I go through a green light, for example.

NotWal said...

I just checked some stats :-

The Standardised Death Rate in Australia in the years 2005, 06 and 07 was 6 per 1,000

Car deaths are 8 per 100,000 so 8 in every 600 deaths is car related.

That says 1 in every 75 people is killed by a car. Can this be true?

Are you talking about Age Standardized? Doesn't that take out the number of deaths by old age? So I guess it doesn't leave that many other things to die from.

NotWal said...

I just checked some stats :-

The Standardised Death Rate in Australia in the years 2005, 06 and 07 was 6 per 1,000

Car deaths are 8 per 100,000 so 8 in every 600 deaths is car related.

That says 1 in every 75 people is killed by a car. Can this be true?

1 in every 75 people killed, is killed by a car.
A subtle distinction, but very different to 1 in every 75 people is killed by a car.

Windxtasy said...

NotWal said...

I just checked some stats :-

The Standardised Death Rate in Australia in the years 2005, 06 and 07 was 6 per 1,000

Car deaths are 8 per 100,000 so 8 in every 600 deaths is car related.

That says 1 in every 75 people is killed by a car. Can this be true?

1 in every 75 people killed, is killed by a car.
A subtle distinction, but very different to 1 in every 75 people is killed by a car.

I don't mean to imply that that stat is qualified by a time period.
Everyone dies eventually. 1 in every 75 or 80 of us will be killed by a car. That's the way we go.

555 said...

The V8/V6 idea is irrelevant.

We mostly see Japanese cars here.. almost all 4 cylinders. Many of them (even bog standard) are capable of cleaning up an aussie V8 - especially if you put some decent corners into the equation. Most of the 'lads' aren't even interested in the sixes or eights. Too heavy, too thirsty, and to be frank, without some serious money on suspension, they handle like a boat.

By the time you have a 2 litre engine, and some testosterone, you have a problem.

A solution posed here (and immediately shouted down) was to restrict young drivers to non-turbo engines of two litres or less.

Personally, I think it's all about having an outlet, and a sense of community. Young men have a need to get their energy out/adrenaline fix. Without the need to hunt, fight, or perform physical work to survive, that energy goes miss-directed.

That's where sport is meant to come into it.. but with all the P.C. namby pamby cotton-wool BS that goes on these days, it's no wonder the lads are finding their own amusement. It's going to get worse before the penny drops unfortunately.

hate to agree with a kiwi, but he has hit the nail on the head. Speed is fun!

NotWal said...
[
"Every k over is a killer" annoying too because it is just not true.

Maybe not a single k but 10kph over will make a huge difference in the impact speed as you hit the brakes to minimise a collision. The old kinematic formula

Vi^2 - Vf^2 = 2as

demonstrates this.

Vi is your starting speed, Vf is your collision speed, a is the deceleration you get from the brakes and s is the distance from the object as you hit the brakes.

Put in a few numbers and try it out. Use about 7.5 m/s^2 for the deceleration -that's 0.75g.
Use m/sec , the conversion is 3.6 kph = 1m/sec.
ie. 60 kph = 16.7 m/sec

If you hit the brakes at 60 kph 18.5 metres from an object you'll gently tap it as you come to rest.

Apply the brakes doing 70kph 18.5 metres from an object and you'll plough into it at 36kph.

Basic kinematics - there's no argument.

Wannabe said...
BTW i drive a diesel van, I think buying it is the best thing i've ever done. plus it stops drink driving after partys because i just sleep in the back :P

Sleeping in the back is a very good strategy for keeping you alive but unfortunately not a good strategy for avoiding a "drunk in charge" conviction. If a "robo cop" (which they all are these days) catches you doing that, you will get done over.

There used to be a whole group of car dwellers near the city where I used to park my car. I spoke to a few of them and they were good people. My car was never touched while left there all day as I think any would be theives were put off by their presence.

They've all gone now, so I assume they were moved on by the authorities... pity!

cisco said...

Wannabe said...
BTW i drive a diesel van, I think buying it is the best thing i've ever done. plus it stops drink driving after partys because i just sleep in the back :P

Sleeping in the back is a very good strategy for keeping you alive but unfortunately not a good strategy for avoiding a "drunk in charge" conviction. If a "robo cop" (which they all are these days) catches you doing that, you will get done over.

Generally the cops around here are pretty good. There was one that had a whinge one night, until i suggested that i was trying to to the right thing and potentially preventing them having to attend a fatality. and that i was on technically parked on private property...

Back in 1971 didnt we have the same problem with GT HO Phase 3s & 6pack chargers ect? & we still dont learn!!

Making electronic stability control mandatory in all new Australian motor vehicles is the most critical road safety measure since compulsory seat belts, the federal government says.

The new measure could have the ability to reduce the chance of a fatal accident by 25 per cent, Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said.

From 2011 all new vehicles will be fitted with electronic stability control while models presently on the market will have a further two years to install the technology.

The mandatory laws will apply to all new models of cars, passenger vans and off-road vehicles.

"This will save lives, full stop," Mr Albanese told reporters as he made the announcement on Tuesday.

"This is the most critical measure that we've taken on road safety since mandating seatbelts since the 1970s."

The ESC technology is a computer-based system that helps drivers maintain control of vehicles in dangerous conditions including wet weather.

General Motors Holden Chairman and Managing Director Mark Reuss, who accompanied the minister, said his company had introduced the technology five years ago.

"We've seen a 30 per cent drop in our insurance claim business ... so we know that this has had a big effect on safety," he told AAP.

But it wasn't clear whether the new technology could potentially put insurers out of business.

"It's bad for business, but I guess I'll take that trade off any day," Mr Reuss said.

The Australian Automobile Association, in welcoming the announcement, said it had been advocating the measure.

"We of course would like it tomorrow," executive director Mike Harris said, adding the association supported a uniform introduction across the nation.

Research released by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries shows that 65.6 per cent of new passenger cars and sport utility vehicles have been fitted with ESC so far this year, an increase of 12.1 per cent from 12 months ago.

"By the end of the year it is likely to be fitted to more than seven out of 10 new vehicles," chamber chief executive Andrew McKellar said.

**Dunno if it will make that much difference** doggie

Ian K said...

NotWal said...
[
"Every k over is a killer" annoying too because it is just not true.

Maybe not a single k but 10kph over will make a huge difference in the impact speed as you hit the brakes to minimise a collision. The old kinematic formula

Vi^2 - Vf^2 = 2as

demonstrates this.

Vi is your starting speed, Vf is your collision speed, a is the deceleration you get from the brakes and s is the distance from the object as you hit the brakes.
...

It's missing reaction time, which will make it logarithmically (is that a word?) even worse.

Basic kinematics - there's no argument.

Well... you could have better brakes/car.



http://www.nrma.com.au/keeping-safe-secure/car-safety/car-stopping-distance-tests.shtml

... although I absolutely agree with their statement
"A key factor in speeding-related crashes is that most motorists underestimate the distance needed to stop"

evlPanda said...

And this is still news for/ignored by most drivers, which I find amazing.

Yeah, you're not wrong Panda, I have to always 'tactfully remind' the missus of this when in the car with her (ESPECIALLY when it's my ute). So many people (her included) have the worst habit of braking later and therefore harder than they need to only decreasing their margin of error even more.

D

Mobydisc said...

Follow the 3 second rule in Sydney traffic and about 3 cars will cut in front of you into your lane. For some reason they think that because there is a bit of space between you and the vehicle in front, getting into your lane will somehow get them to their destination quicker.

Sydney traffic, cursing the fool in front of you who is cursing the fool in front of them who is cursing the fool in front of them.

Same in Perth mate, on drugs over here I think no idea at all..