Town of Speed to be renamed SpeedKills in safety campaign

speedkills facebookVictoria’s Transport Accident Commission has today launched a social media campaign which will see the 45 residents of Speed in Victoria rename their township SpeedKills if they get 10,000 ‘Likes’ on Facebook.

In return the TAC will donate $10,000 to the Speed Lions Club.

The idea for the campaign came when John Thompson, TAC’s senior manager for road safety and marketing, drove through the the Mallee township on the way to a focus group in Mildura.

TAC’s acting CEO Phil Reed said that the new campaign signalled a move of focus from drink driving to rural speed deaths.

He said: “As a community we have made drink driving the most socially unacceptable behavior, now it is time for speeding to be made just as unacceptable.”

The idea was developed by TAC’s marketing team with help from Naked Communications.

At the time of posting, the Rename Speed Facebook page has already received nearly 1000 likes

At the end of the campaign, the town will return to its original name.

Comments


  1. MattP
    14 Jan 11
    10:54 am

  2. I hope the authorities put as much focus on “Poor Roads Kill” or “Lack of Driver Training and Skills Kill” or “Being so Paranoid about speed cameras that I’m staring at my speedo and not the road Kills”

    But an interesting idea nonetheless.

    Will their postcode change to 40km/h?

  3. rob
    14 Jan 11
    12:22 pm

  4. Good cause

  5. Paul
    14 Jan 11
    3:24 pm

  6. Gee, if I lived in VIC and was paying for this as a taxpayer I’d be pretty dirty…WOFTAM. Speed doesn’t kill anyone, inappropriate speed does. Mandatory advanced driver training would fix that, but it’s neither politically expedient nor revenue generating so the politicians aren’t interested.

    Something that really kills people on the road is fatigue. So it makes perfect sense that the limit is 100km/h on a 4-6 lane freeway, right ? Take forever to get anywhere and maybe have a little nap on the way while you are at it *rolls eyes*

    It’s funny, in a very tragic way, that the state with the biggest fixation on belting the motorist senseless at every turn had the highest holiday road toll…yeah VIC, your motoring policy is a real winner.

  7. Ben
    14 Jan 11
    3:51 pm

  8. It’s always funny to see the speeders come out of hiding as soon as these campaigns kick off. Drink driving doesn’t kill either, it’s just people who can’t handle their drink, right?

  9. Grant
    14 Jan 11
    4:07 pm

  10. Hit the nail right on the head Paul !

  11. Mike
    14 Jan 11
    4:42 pm

  12. Fantastic idea, and a great cause. We should get people behind this. Well done to the people of Speed

  13. Anonymous
    14 Jan 11
    5:38 pm

  14. Great idea, wish I’d had it myself.

  15. Tim
    14 Jan 11
    5:56 pm

  16. Brilliant. Just Brilliant!!

  17. Rob
    14 Jan 11
    7:25 pm

  18. Great name for a town, always raises a smile when I see the name on the way through and the warning sign to slow down.
    If it works changing the name well done, I still feel pretty down when I see P platers race by me on rural roads, need to grow up kids, you aren’t as good as you think you are…

  19. Anonymous
    14 Jan 11
    7:57 pm

  20. love it……..

  21. Anonymous
    16 Jan 11
    8:36 am

  22. Bravo MattP & Paul – glad to see not everybody blindly accepts the “speed kills” rubbish.

    Ben – driving over an arbitrary speed limit does not kill: not driving to the conditions (which can occur over/under the speed limit) DOES.

  23. Jack
    16 Jan 11
    9:23 pm

  24. I like this. But the comments of some that suggest that high speed driving doesn’t endanger lives are really worrying though.

  25. Mike
    17 Jan 11
    12:57 am

  26. Anonymous – driving too fast makes it harder to drive to safe conditions, surely?

  27. Luke
    17 Jan 11
    9:36 am

  28. The comments on here are a little scary.

    Anyone remember year 10 physics? Force = Mass x Acceleration. i.e. the faster you are going, the harder it is to stop and the bigger the force and the more you are like, dead and stuff.

  29. Nick
    17 Jan 11
    9:56 am

  30. Actually it’s rather sad that a town’s name is up for grabs like this and it’s no less disturbing to see it used to further social/government agendas than it would be to learn they’d decided to rename the place to Maccas. What next? ‘Welcome to the Town of Drink Drive, Bloody Idiot’? ‘To Domestic Violence Australia Says No – 28km’?

  31. Adam
    17 Jan 11
    10:16 am

  32. Looks like Speed really is a contributing factor….
    http://www.news.com.au/breakin.....5892250693

  33. Eek
    17 Jan 11
    11:19 am

  34. Good to see that the client has put their hand up to lay claim to the idea early.

  35. Josie K
    17 Jan 11
    11:45 am

  36. This is an interesting campaign and I like the use of social media. Whether it will lead to behavioural change is debatable, but bravo for making an effort.

    Paul et al, I think your points are well intentioned but misguided. Anybody who has lived in rural Australia knows that way too many young people are killed because they speed in powerful cars on country roads. It’s not about being trained to drive to an advanced level, it’s about being young and bulletproof and looking for something exciting to do in smaller communities, where there is also a reasonable level of peer pressure to participate in some high risk activities. It is vastly different to the risks incurred by young drivers in cities, where they have to contend with traffic issues and don’t have he lure of endless empty roads that seem to offer little risk. Before anybody can take advanced driver training, they have to live long enough to master the basic skills.

  37. Anonymous
    17 Jan 11
    12:13 pm

  38. Mike – not necessarily. In many instances yes, but the blanket “SPEED KILLS” messaging is so misguided it’s not funny. Two (deliberately extreme) scenarios:

    1. A driver is doing 115km/h in a 100km/h zone. The road is dry, arrow straight, newly surfaced and it’s broad daylight. He’s driving a safe, modern car with traction control, ABS, etc. The police see him & fine him $200+.

    2. A driver is rushing through a twisty back road – he’s doing 80km/h in an 80km/h zone. The road is wet, twisty & broken up in parts and it’s night. The driver is in a crappy old Datsun 120Y & it’s sliding all over the place as he tries to maintain his speed. He is breaking no laws.

    Which is more dangerous?

    Question: why is driving at any speed over the speed limit in Australia considered dangerous, yet apparently doing 250km/h on an autobahn is a safe, daily event for many thousands of Germans? Why is Germany’s per capita road death toll lower than ours? I guess the fact that they are put through vigorous driver training is a coincidence…

    Luke: yep, the faster you hit something the bigger the bang. Got any equations that prove that driving above an arbitrary speed limit actually CAUSE the crash? No other variables?

  39. Unwritten Rule
    17 Jan 11
    12:53 pm

  40. I hope that this campaign helps to reduce deaths(.)

    On another note. If anyone has any dealings with government, can you ask if they are going to start a nationwide campaign to improve the common courtesy of drivers?

    1) When parking in a busy street, please bear in mind that other drivers will wish to park too; so perhaps do not park right in the middle of a spot where 2 cars could park…

    2) When you pull from one lane, into another lane and someone has let you in – please acknowledge the courteous driver; waving in your rear view mirror will do it! – Perhaps use your indicators too before you pull in…

    3) When approaching a roundabout; you do not need to stop!! IT IS A ROUNDABOUT!!!! It is not a T junction. Please only stop if there is something coming.

    4) When driving at a snails place trying to find a parking space; how about indicate to the passenger side of the road and look into your rear view mirror – you moron!!!! (sorry but they are moron’s…)

    5) The sign says “Keep left unless overtaking” What do you not understand about: “Keep left unless overtaking”???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    6) – Anyone got any more?

    Truly though – society (In Sydney I feel) is very ‘me me me’ and it shouldnt be – The Sun is shining for crying out loud!!!

    - should the government be responsible for pointing out these unwritten rules and hopefully enabling me not to up my heart rate everytime I drive anywhere in Sydney…?

  41. Shane
    17 Jan 11
    5:09 pm

  42. Honest to God, I can’t understand the dialogue about road rules in this country. You have politicians, police and experts saying that the current laws save lives. You have the Jeremy Clarkson’s of the world saying they’re rubbish.

    I am yet to spend more than 5minutes in the right lane of a busy freeway going 100km/h without some idiot tailgating me. I fully understand it’s ‘Keep Right Unless Overtaking’ but if I’m doing the limit then no-one should be overtaking me. If the other lanes are also doing 100km/h (which they generally are) then no-one can or SHOULD overtake. Yet we have V8 supercar drivers on natinal radio claiming most people do 80km/h in the centre lane!? What freeway are they driving on?!

    Germany’s Autobahn is pointed to as an example of how it should be done by petrol heads. Sorry, but they have fewer on/off ramps creating problems, and very few people actually go 250km/h. Generally people settle at around 125km/h. Oh, and by the way, there are 600+ deaths every year on the Autobahn… it is hardly safe.

    Got caught speeding? Quit complaining about revenue raising and take the road less travelled – DON’T SPEED.

    And don’t kid yourselves folks, speed does kill. The faster you’re going, the slower you are to stop in a ‘think quick’ situation, regardless of how good a drive you (think you) are. Sure, speed is great if no kids ever runs onto a road again or no-one ever pulls out in front unwisely or no-one ever changes lanes without checking their blind spot. But people make mistakes, and speed punishes those mistakes.

    Cue the inevitable bunch of car enthusiasts who insist they’re the safe ones. Sorry, but everyone who carts hundreds or thousands of kg of metal around at 100km/h is unsafe. Skill matters, of course, but attitude does too.

  43. Paul
    17 Jan 11
    6:15 pm

  44. Wow, scary how many people here (Ben, Jack & Co.) have drank the government propaganda Kool-Aid and have no idea about the root causes of accidents, or the veritable mountain of documented evidence discrediting the simple “Speed Kills” mantra. But, if putting your head in the sand helps you sleep better at night then more power to you :-/

    Josie K, I hear what you are saying but I think you might have misunderstood me a little. If you can’t handle a car at a given speed, even under the posted limit, then you shouldn’t be doing it. No doubt about it. The point I was trying to make is that better training

    a) gives you a far better handle on what is an appropriate speed for the road/conditions/time of day/proximity of gates/livestock and wildlife risk/etc., and

    b) how to react if things go wrong, irrespective of the reason.

    Proper driver training is not about how to do wicked burnouts and drive everywhere at 200km/h. It’s about risk recognition and avoidance, appropriate speed (which may be UNDER the speed limit,) safe distances from surrounding objects, how different surfaces and conditions affect handling, and a myriad of other factors that Mum & Dad doing their 120 hours of “training” with little Johnny would never cover in a million Sundays.

    Until someone in charge Man/Woman’s up and mandates proper training, the carnage will continue. Young people will always do stupid things, but we aren’t even giving them the basic skills which might save them from their own brainless acts. That’s the real tragedy. Mindless and thoughtless generalisations like “Speed Kills” being accepted as fact propagates that tragedy….and people continue to die.

    Unwritten Rule – Agreed on all points. Just FYI, keep left unless overtaking is an actual road rule, but when was the last time it was actually enforced ?

    Just a quick question to end. How many have you have driven in Germany on the autobahns, besides (possibly) Anonymous 19 ? I have, cruised at 180 when the conditions allowed and it was perfectly normal. The lane discipline there was excellent, drivers were courteous and alert to their surroundings and everything just worked. It was clear that drivers knew what they were doing. But according to the TAC and some of you here they should all be dead….

  45. Julian Cole
    17 Jan 11
    6:32 pm

  46. Tim, any entrance sources from ‘Ford Drag Racing Club’ forum? Where did all these pro-speeding trolls come from?

  47. Julian Cole
    17 Jan 11
    6:33 pm

  48. p.s Great idea!

  49. Tommy
    18 Jan 11
    8:01 am

  50. Brilliant work guys, well done. Great idea and I love the delivery.

    As for the posts who believe that speeding is fine…hang your heads in shame. Let me guess, you probably believe that people kill people, not guns.

  51. Anonymous
    18 Jan 11
    8:06 am

  52. Shane, you are so far off-base it’s not funny. A few points for starters:

    1) It’s ‘keep LEFT unless overtaking’. There are variances is speedometer readings between cars. If you are not overtaking somebody, move to the left lane. Somebody else who may be travelling a few km/h faster than you doesn’t affect you – so get over it.

    2) Using the TOTAL volume of deaths on German autobahns is, I’m sorry, moronic. Germany has 80+million people…of course the total is going to be higher.

    The per capita death toll (deaths per 100,000 population) in Germany is significantly lower. I’ve driven autobahns on numerous occassions & there are many on/off-ramps (usually accompanied by a brief enforceable 130km/h limit), then it’s back up to speed. NOBODY does 125km/h – in fact it would be dangerous to do so.

    Good to see you’ve blindly soaked up the messaging attached to one of the lucrative government “safety” campaigns in existence though, they must love you.

    Until the government puts some money into building proper roads and mandates regular driver training (both of which will allow higher speed limits & reduced travel times – who wouldn’t want this?) they’re wasting their time. This, however, would require a shift from an approach that generates millions upon millions of dollars a year to one that costs that. Will never happen.

  53. rob
    18 Jan 11
    11:16 am

  54. My toyota paseo can only do about 120km/h, maybe 140km/h down a hill if i am lucky

    am i not allowed on the road anymore anonymous?

  55. Shane
    18 Jan 11
    12:51 pm

  56. Righto anonymous, you caught me out on a typo, congratulations. Yes, it is keep left unless overtaking. Yes, I have my speedo tested, and yes, it is correct plus or minus 1km/h. So when you tailgate me when I’m in the right lane doing 100km/h it is entirely you who is at fault for tailgating at all, let alone on a freeway. Not to mention that you probably had to speed to catch up to me in the first place. If the other two lanes are busy too, I am under no obligation to move across. So sit tight, enjoy the max speed limit, and back off a few metres!

    I never compared the Autobahn’s safety to Australia’s road safety. I simply said it is “hardly safe” when there are many many deaths every year. I spent a week driving around Germany recently and yes, some people choose to go faster, but in the two right lanes it is generally around the 80-90mph mark or roughly 125 – 140kmh. I look forward to your peer-reviewed assessment of driving morbidity and mortality rates in Germany when compared to Australia that show a dramatic reduction in Germany. What’s that? No such research exists? Interesting.

    My main point, that you curiously chose not to address, is that speed punishes mistakes. The faster you are going, the more brutal the punishment. It could be your mistake, another driver’s mistake, a shoddy section of road, a pedestrian, a ball rolling onto the road… whatever. All the drivers training in the world won’t change the fact that mistakes happen.

  57. Unwritten Rule
    18 Jan 11
    1:32 pm

  58. @Shane

    Shane, I agree with you regarding sticking to the speed limit.

    However it sounds like you will sit in the ‘right’ (as opposed to left) lane even when you are not overtaking anybody. This seems very strange to me? Why would you break the law by staying in the right hand lane?

    Speeding kills I am adamant about that, however so can being wreckless (which speeding is part of…)

    Drivers, not being aware of other drivers and thus being a danger to other road users; can also kill. There should be a campaign around ‘driver awareness’. I have driven extensively in Europe and in Australia. In Australia drivers are simply not aware and do not look out for their fellow road users. It is as if they have tunnel vision?

    The mentions of the autobahn bring to mind the fact that once you overtake in Germany, you get straight back over to the left; it is instinctive to do so. You would not dream to stay daudling along in the right hand lane in Germany(.)

    Anyhow, good luck to all and drive safely!!

  59. Anonymous
    18 Jan 11
    1:35 pm

  60. Shane you’ve inadvertently made your way around to the point I’m trying to make. Speed indeed does punish mistakes…however it does not cause them.

    So why not get at the root of the problem, and address the causes of those mistakes – namely inadequate road surface quality, poor driver training, etc – rather than simply handing out fines for low-level speeding offences?

    You’ve again proved your lack of understanding on the topic by defining Germany’s autobahns as “hardly safe”, simply because hundreds of people die there every year. Hundreds of people die in plane crashes each year as well, so by your logic air travel must be a bloody dangerous way to get somewhere!

    And a little tip for you: unless you’re overtaking another car, get out of the right lane – it’s against the law for you to be there. Brush up on your road rules champ – you DO have an obligation to move over.

    At least you’re proving to be an excellent example for my argument for additional/better driver training.

    PS. Where & how do you have your speedo tested out of curiosity?

    PPS. Here are some figures for you from the OECD:
    http://www.internationaltransp.....f/risk.pdf
    These include death tolls per capita & per km travelled for a range of countries including Aus & Germany.

    You can do your own assessment & let me know your theories why Germany’s – despite having high/lack of speed limits, if you were to believe Aus authorities should kill everyone – is significantly lower than Australia’s. As a starting point, have a look at German licensing systems compared to ours.

  61. AdGrunt
    18 Jan 11
    3:13 pm

  62. @Anonymous – agree with your points.
    [crash stats are actually a lot to do with proportion of poor rural and unsurfaced roads where cameras don't live and would do even less than in cities, but that would never raise money, would it. for support for this, look at lowest death rate - ACT - and it ain't because they're all pollies!]

    @Shane – I applaud you admitting your poor and aggravating driving skills in such a public forum. Now learn to drive better, starting with returning to the inside lane.

    @Unwritten Rule – there is much evidence to suggest your simple suggestions have a marked (but non-revenue generating) imapct on road skills, behaviour and hence accidents.

    Yes, I’ve driven on Autobahns a lot. Noticeable difference is Australian drivers are blindly oblivious to their surroundings as they are at / under the speed limit, so believe themself safe.

  63. Shane
    19 Jan 11
    10:12 am

  64. Obviously you all read the signs by the side of the road and consider them gospel. I fully understand the “left unless overtaking” law, whereas it seems some of you do not. If all the lanes are being used (that is, 95% of the time) and if it is quite busy in all lanes (that is, 85% of the time) then I am under no obligation to vacate the right-hand lane. That’s right folks, under Australian (or at the very least Victorian) law, the ‘keep left unless overtaking’ law has quite a few conditions attached to it. One of them is a lack of congestion. So on any given Mon-Fri I will continue to do 100km/h in the right hand lane if the other lanes are busy too. Tailgate all you like.

    My point remains that things go wrong on the road. The same crash at speeds 40 – 50 km/h apart have very different consequences. I couldn’t care less if I smash up your brand new SS into a thousand pieces, I just don’t want to kill anyone.

  65. Shane
    19 Jan 11
    10:23 am

  66. Excuse me while I bask in smug self-satisfaction.

    The driver must not drive in the right lane
    unless—
    (a) the driver is turning right, or making a
    U-turn from the centre of the road, and is
    giving a right change of direction signal; or
    (b) the driver is overtaking; or
    (c) a left lane must turn left sign or left traffic
    lane arrows apply to any other lane and the
    driver is not turning left; or
    (d) the driver is required to drive in the right
    lane under rule 159; or
    (e) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or
    (f) the traffic in each other lane is congested; or
    (g) the traffic in every lane is congested; or
    (h) the right lane is a special purpose lane in
    which the driver, under another provision of
    these Rules, is permitted to drive; or
    (i) there are only 2 marked lanes and the left
    lane is a slow vehicle turn out lane.
    Penalty: 3 penalty units.

  67. Anonymous
    19 Jan 11
    12:17 pm

  68. So rather than moving to the left to allow traffic to flow better (I can’t recall ever not being able to change lanes within a few seconds of wanting to do so…”congested” in the legislation you’ve quoted would be defined as stationary traffic), you’d block traffic behind you, despite:

    a) not needing to be in the right lane in the first place
    b) other traffic’s speed having absolutely no bearing on your journey/life whatsoever

    And by the sounds of things actually taking some satisfaction in doing all of this? You really are doing a fantastic job of demonstrating exactly why this country needs a thorough shakeup in it’s attitude towards driving & other motorists.

    To your point about crashes being less severe the lower the speed: obviously. Does that mean hwy speed limits should be reduced to 40km/h? After all, it’d be safer right?

  69. Shane
    19 Jan 11
    1:34 pm

  70. You’re spot on. This country does need a shakeup in driving attitudes. People such as yourself who assume to know the law (when you really don’t) are a large part of the problem.

    If I do 100km/h in the right lane, inevitably I see some clown in my rearviewmirror getting angrier and angrier and closer and closer to me, all because they believe I shouldn’t be in the right lane. And they’re wrong, just as you are wrong. And although I have the aforementioned smug self-satisfaction to motivate me to stay on 100km/h, many people cave into this pressure. When people are being tailgated, they take unnecessary risks. They change lanes when they shouldn’t, or they speed up when they shouldn’t. This is dangerous.

    If traffic is congested (Not stationary, my friend, but simply crowded) and I am in the right lane, it would create unnecessary congestion (that word again!) in the centre/left lanes if I were to merge across. So I stay in the right lane. Legally. And not only is it legal. It’s logical.

    Finally, the test I mentioned to check my speedo was done at my most recent serice. It’s called a VA test or something. So yes, I might be going 99km/h.

  71. AdGrunt
    19 Jan 11
    2:57 pm

  72. @Shane
    Tailgating is dangerous driving. Good point, well made.
    You appear to recognise, enjoy and relish causing frustration in lesser drivers who have less sense (of stopping distance) than you. You’re not the Police, so why are you risking you own life and others to teach these tailgaters a lesson in speeding?

    Why not suggest your state government highlights the risk of misguided, self-righteous CitizenCops risking accidents by “doing what the law allows them”?

    Then get over yourself.

  73. Anonymous
    19 Jan 11
    3:31 pm

  74. You’re clutching at straws mate. Using semantics to misinterpret the law to feel smug about yourself at the expense of fellow road users is rather sad.

    You may have noticed (provided you aren’t focusing too hard on that perfectly calibrated speedo*) some large roadside signs that read “KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING”. If there’s any ambiguity around your definition of “congested” I’d have thought these signs would serve as a fairly clear indicator of what the law is & how it is policed.

    If you can’t change lanes safely you have no business behind the wheel of a car. You see a car behind you, you indicate, you move over as soon as you’re able to. Simple. I don’t see how that is dangerous. You don’t sit there holding up traffic because you think you have a right to be there.

    * FYI – most (i.e. 99.9% of) manufacturer speedos read 4-6km/h under true speed at 100km/h. So if you’ve got your cruise set at a speedo indicated 100km/h you’re really doing about 94-96km/h. If there’s a “lunatic” behind using his GPS to get a more accurate speed & travelling at a true 100km/h, he’s probably angry because you’re in his way. Seriously, it isn’t hard – just move over. You’re clearly not in a rush & have no need to be there.

  75. Unwritten Rule
    19 Jan 11
    5:20 pm

  76. @Shane

    Shane you are an example of why I have high blood pressure on my drives around Sydney.

    However, I layoff from using the horn because I simply guess that the driver in front is ignorant and I just under take them…

    I will admit that undertaking is dangerous.

    Shane, you have caused me to undertake; you have created this danger. (Even though you are aware.) This is getting confusing.

    Speeding aside (I agree that speeding is not good.) Shame please look out for your fellow drivers; you might help to cause less accidents of, which some could be fatal…

  77. Shane
    20 Jan 11
    11:28 am

  78. @Adgrunt, Better me holding them up than some 21 year old who freaks out at the pressure being put on them from behind and changes lanes without doing a headcheck…

    @Anon Well I quoted you the legislation so I would’ve thought that was a better indicator of the law than a road sign that has limitted space and time to get a point across. Yes, broadly speaking, the law is to keep left unless overtaking. And yes, I am also allowed to sit on 100km/h in the right lane if other lanes are congested. And finally, yes, congested simply means busy.
    I don’t do this all the time. Usually on a freeway I need to travel no more than 15 minutes, so it’s not necessary to be in the right lane. On longer trips and in heavy traffic, I may end up in the right lane. It is in these circumstances that I will happily sit on 100km/h. Legally.

    @Unwritten Rule, I did not cause you to undertake. You made that decision, not me. You have created this danger. Your own recklessness does so. Unless you have an atomic bomb to get to in order to defuse, I don’t see any reason for you to need to get past me as I do 100km/h…

    Folks, it’s quite simple, and I understand completely. I caught you all with your pants down. You all thought you knew the law and that the law meant your anger at people in the right lane is justified. I proved you incorrect. I knew the law, and you did not. I quoted the law, which quite clearly supports me in my right to stay in the right lane if traffic is busy and sit on 100km/h (Actually I don’t even have to do that! I could sit on 90km/h and that would be just as legal in busy traffic… but that’s a whole other argument). Now you are all stubbornly refusing to accept this. You all must have incredibly important things to do all day every day that you can’t cruise at 100km/h at a safe distance from me. Oh no, you feel the need to tailgate people like me. Well, as tough as this must be for you all, you can either realise that you’ve been in the wrong all this time, or you can disregard everythign I’m saying and continue to live in ignorant frustration at those of us with the audacity to obey the law.

    Peace.

  79. AdGrunt
    20 Jan 11
    12:25 pm

  80. “Better me holding them up than some 21 year old who freaks out at the pressure being put on them from behind and changes lanes without doing a headcheck” – so applying some armchair psychology, when exactly did your application to join the Police get declined?

  81. Shame
    20 Jan 11
    12:26 pm

  82. Surely Shane is just trolling now.
    Personally, the more ignorant drivers like him the better.
    Just frees up the left lane for me to use as I like. I don’t mind ducking around the occasional truck that’s in my lane and cutting back in front of the other drivers that are too lazy to change.
    It’s people with Shanes attitude that dramatically decrease the efficiency of our arterial roads.
    The government could save billions in freeway upgrades if it properly policed the “Keep left unless overtaking rule”.

  83. Ben
    20 Jan 11
    12:50 pm

  84. What a win you’ve had Shane. Bravo. I’m sure you’ll tell your fellow Camry-driving buddies down at the bowls club how much you stuck it to those crazy lunatics on the Internet. You fought, you won. Victory is yours! Some day they’ll write books & make a movie about your conquest.

    David vs Goliath. Lakers vs Celtics. Australia vs NZ. Shane the annoying bloke in the wrong lane of traffic vs the world.

    Good on you, enjoy this glorious day. You’ve earned it. Maybe celebrate by flipping through the Constitution so you can find a few loopholes that will allow you to gain a sense of smug satisfaction by deliberately pissing normal people off.

  85. Simon
    20 Jan 11
    1:23 pm

  86. I reckon they should change their name to Slowdown.

  87. Shane
    20 Jan 11
    1:23 pm

  88. @Shame.
    Not trolling at all! And if the left lane is free, I’m there too! I prefer any of the other lanes to the right lane. But if I have to be there, then so be it, and I’m not going to merge into congestion just to let someone through because they’re impatient and/or ignorant of the rules.

    @Ben. David. Celtics. Australia. I don’t know who you’re referring to, but I’m rarely in the “wrong lane.” I am allowed to be in the right lane when there is heavy traffic. That’s it. That’s all I’m saying. I am allowed to be in the right lane when there is heavy traffic. That is the law. Apparently that still annoys people because I get tailgated at 100km/h, but my point remains. In heavy traffic, I am allowed to be there. So I’m not in the “wrong” lane at all. Capisce?

  89. Ben
    20 Jan 11
    2:27 pm

  90. When I’m in (what I would define as) heavy traffic, I’m not going 100km/h…I’m doing about 20km/h.

    Anytime I’m able to do 100km/h on the freeway, the traffic is quite clearly moving well & is therefore not heavy or congested. If it was heavy/congested, you wouldn’t be able to do the speed limit now would you?

    So now we’ve established the road is not congested, and yet you are doing 100km/h in the outside lane with people behind you wanting to get past, it stands to reason you must move over to the inside lane. If you are unable to perform a basic driving maneuver – i.e. changing lanes in normal traffic conditions – please proceed to the nearest department of transport and hand in your license as you are obviously unfit to operate a motor vehicle.

    Capisce?

  91. AdGrunt
    20 Jan 11
    2:46 pm

  92. @Shane
    Would you mind posting some video of you using these advanced driving techniques? I for one, would be fascinated to see this.

  93. Shane
    20 Jan 11
    3:02 pm

  94. Well I guess ultimately we differ on what congestion is. If I’m travelling 100km/h in the right lane, but all other lanes are doing 90km/h or below and my merging lanes would be focring myself between two cars that are already as close as they should be to each other (ie I am forcing the car behind me to slow down to avoid tailgating me) the I consider that congestion. I’m capable of performing the merge, but that’s not the same thing as saying I should merge. It is relatively common for such a difference in speed to exist between lanes, and no-one has yet told me a good reason to move over. The law is on my side and frankly a lot of people here are just angry because I burst their bubble.

    And yet you hit the nail on the head there, Ben. If I’m travelling 100km/h in the right lane and people are behind me and wanting to get past, remind me again how I’m the one in the wrong? Granted I only did physics at an undergraduate level but from memory it’s tough to accelerate past someone doing 100km/h without yourself breaking the 100km/h limit…

    Limits are there for a reason, and I find it disturbing how many people feel they alone have the right to break the limit. “Oh, if I do 70 in a 60 zone it’s no big deal” seems to be the common theme. As a 25 year old male with 20-20 vision and good hand-eye coordination, I could control my car at much higher speeds than your average 60 or 70 year old whose vision, reaction time and strength couldn’t possibly match mine. Should I be allowed to do so? Are speed limits to be tailored to the driver? No, absolutely not. And yet somehow sticking to the limit is considered optional by a lot of (obviously very very very important) people. 100km/h is plenty fast, and it is highly unlikely that anyone driving on a city freeway has any need to travel faster. So why am I being tailgated on freeways at all? Ignore the lanes for a moment and answer me that question…

  95. AdGrunt
    20 Jan 11
    3:47 pm

  96. @Shane
    We’re talking about *your* poor driving here, not theirs. For all you know they may have lost their brakes and decided to use your garbage truck to slow themself down.

    Luckily for them, you’re a pro driver, so all will be well…

  97. Shane
    20 Jan 11
    4:05 pm

  98. You assume I’m a poor driver. Why? Because I interpret the word “congested” differently to you? That’s hardly reason to doubt my driving ability. Sorry to labour the point, but I’m a 25 year old male. I have sharp reflexes, perfect vision, drive often and on a wide range of different surfaces. The fact that I’ve had zero collisions/dings/accidents in my 7 years of driving makes me unusual for someone of my age and sex. So purely on probabilities I’d be more entitled to accuse you of being the poor driver, not me.

    And once again, the question posed: Why am I being tailgated at all whilst doing 100km/h?

  99. Shane
    20 Jan 11
    4:40 pm

  100. I’ve come up with an anology. Speed doesn’t kill in the same way that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Some people, with a straight face, argue that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Why? Because the cause of cancer, when you whittle it down to the Nth degree, is a cell mutation gone bad. If cigarettes literally caused cancer, then everyone who ever had a puff would have cancer. So yes, technically, cigarettes do not cause cancer. They are a major major risk factor, though.

    In the same way, speed does not actually kill. It is, however, a proven risk factor for fatal crashes. It is not the speed that causes the crash in most cases, but it is the speed that makes the consequences so much more severe.

    Let me quote from the World Health Organisation (who you might believe since I doubt stand to profit from spreading the “propaganda” you all seem to think is part of a giant conspiracy)…

    “In Australia, the speed limit on Melbourne’s rural and outer freeway network was increased from 100 km/h to 110 km/h in 1987 and then changed back to 100 km/h in 1989. Compared to a control area where the speed limit remained the same, the injury crash rate per kilometre travelled increased by 24.6% when the speed limit increased, and decreased by 19.3% when the speed limit decreased.”

    So while I point to stats, data and history, you point to conspiracy theories about revenue raising. You don’t think that somewhere along the line reports like the one I just quoted (and piles of other reports backing it up… I can provide links if you like) passed over the desk of the transport minister? I know its much more fun to think the government are out to screw you to the wall, but perhaps people aren’t so evil after all and the politicans are just a little better informed than you. They realise the consequences of NOT cracking down on speed. More deaths. More serious injuries.

    So sure, technically, speed doesn’t kill all by itself. But it makes it a lot more likely that someone will die or get put in a wheelchair. And by cracking down on speed, the politicians are actually (shockingly?) making a real difference to fatality rates. But that’s a lot more boring than blaming politicians and labelling them revenue raisers or killjoys, isn’t it?

  101. Ben
    20 Jan 11
    4:58 pm

  102. Because the person behind you wants to go faster than you. Reasons for this could include:

    a) medical emergency
    b) they are late for a meeting
    c) their speedo reads lower than yours (yet still within the 10% variance allowed by the ADRs)
    d) they are using a dead-accurate GPS (vs an innaccurate manufacturer speedo)
    e) they are desperate for a shit
    f) who cares because it’s irrelevant

    There are a million reasons why someone might be going a few km/h faster than you. Without defaulting to describing a single, near-impossible scenario (a beautifully empty right hand lane & congested other lanes…seriously, lane discipline in Australia is so poor that this never, EVER happens – 99.9% of the time all lanes travel at the same pace), what’s so hard about moving over & letting them past?

    I use the right lane often as I tend to travel a few km/h above an indicated 100km/h (to account for speedo error). If someone comes racing up behind me I simply move over into the inner lanes & let them by, then get back in the outside lane when I can. Very easily done. I suggest you try it.

  103. Unwritten Rule
    20 Jan 11
    5:45 pm

  104. Don’t get me started on pedestrians who I have stopped for so they can cross over the road at a zebra crossing! Not all of them I must add.

    - The ones who walk as if they are in slow motion, do not acknowledge any thanks, ambling across, no agenda… They often get a big dose of the horn(.)

    Shane is this you; because you can…?

    (Obviously little old ladies are exempt, I will get out and help them across…) :)

  105. AdGrunt
    20 Jan 11
    5:49 pm

  106. “I’m a 25 year old male. I have sharp reflexes, perfect vision, drive often and on a wide range of different surfaces.”

    This reads like some Lonely Hearts Chauffeur ad.

    Tip for life – being a good driver is like being creative, clever, or a lady. If you have to tell people you are, then you clearly aren’t.

    “I’ve had zero collisions/dings/accidents in my 7 years of driving makes me unusual for someone of my age and sex. So purely on probabilities I’d be more entitled to accuse you of being the poor driver, not me.”

    SEVEN WHOLE YEARS!

    Unusual in what way? If your driving is as good as your understanding of statistics, I fear for Vic drivers.

    So why are you being tail-gated at 100kph? Only those drivers can give you the actual answer, but you might be getting some hint that you driving whilst outwardly lawful (noting rule 125) it is also aggravating and a hinderance more notable of the geriatric or bloody minded.

    So go on, tell us when you were declined from the Rozzers.

  107. Anonymous
    20 Jan 11
    6:36 pm

  108. Shane you continue to demonstrate a deep lack of understanding on this subject. It’s embarrassing to read. You’re posts are becoming incoherent ramblings.

  109. AdGrunt
    20 Jan 11
    6:46 pm

  110. “Let me quote from the World Health Organisation” – well actually, you aren’t.

    The WHO are quoting from a fairly crude study which was undertaken by a chap called Sliogeris in 1992 on data from a two year period in 87-89. Guess who he worked for?

    Yeah, VICROADS.

    It’s almost as if this is some self-fulfilling argument presented by Vicroads here, innit.

    Amongst various statistical flaws in the study, including it’s long-draw causal conclusions, the study quantifies the relationship fairly crudely and gives NO indication that speeds above 110 kph would be more or less dangerous.

    A real bugger statistics when you actually understand them, aren’t they.

  111. Shane
    20 Jan 11
    8:42 pm

  112. @Ben No comment on the stats I quoted? None? Just going to gloss over the irrefutable fact that speed is a massive risk factor for serious collisions, and then say it’s irrelevant if someone wants to pass me doing 120km/h? Interesting.

    So you move across, even though you’re doing (Let’s say) 104km/h on your speedo or 100km/h (real speed) and let someone race past? Without bringing in the Moral High Horse, at what speed would you say to yourself “this guy needs to slow down or he’s going to kill someone” and stay in the right lane?

    You honk people for not scuttling across in abowed reverence to your noble gesture of stopping at a pedestrian crossing? Wow. I would recommend anger classes, but I’m going to steer clear of the pop psychology that AdGrunt appears to spruik. I don’t feel the need to speed up my walking pace since I think I already make pretty decent time. Usually a driver will get a wave of thanks. As in “Wow, thanks for not careening through the pedestrian crossing as if I’m not here. Thanks for not killing me.”

    @Adgrunt It’s unusual in that statistically speaking most young men make at least one insurance claim (or are involved in at least one collision) in their formative driving years. So yeah, it is unusual. I’ve never applied to be a police officer. Interesting that you would jump to that. Road safety law abider = Failed Cop. Hmmm. I’m no angel in every aspect of my life, but when it comes to chunks of metal hurtling along, dodging in and out of each other at speed? Yeah, I obey the law. Ground-breaking apparently. Also, I’m curious as to what age people gain the right to pick and choose laws to obey? I’d look forward to that one more than my 18th! Perhaps I’ll choose to not pay tax anymore.

    I hope that next time either of you come up against someone with the audacity to obey the speed limit in the Freeway’s right lane, you think of me. Then, I hope you think about the fact that they are legally entitled to be there. Then I hope you back off and remember that where you need to get to can probably wait. Jusging by our back-and-forth here and the amount of time it’s taken up, I’m going to hazard a guess and say none of us are chief of emergency surgery at a major hospital. After all, if you’re only doing what speedo accuracy laws allow (Let’s say 110km/h for argument’s sake) I hope you realise that over a 20km trip on the freeway your oh-so-important destination will evade you for a total of 10-odd minutes longer. Perhaps not worth the risk of undertaking or tailgating? Just a thought.

  113. Ben
    21 Jan 11
    9:22 am

  114. Shane, you’re just rambling (accusing me of honking people on pedestrian crossings – what on earth are you on about?) as mentioned previously so I’ll leave you with this. My previous response was to your first message where you seemed so intent on asking why you were being tailgated (your second post with all the stats didn’t appear until my response had been published)

    I’ve seen the stats before. It’s old news. They’re from governments who earn billions in revenue from speed cameras. Your (and their) argument is that “speed kills”. The faster you go, the more dangerous it is. The faster you go, the more chance you have of crashing & killing yourself/someone else. As long as you’re traveling at or below the posted speed limit, all is safe. “I took physics in school, etc etc”

    My argument is that this view is massively oversimplifying the issue. Speed in itself does NOT kill. INAPPROPRIATE speed kills. High speeds – when managed correctly (i.e. with driver training & proper road design) – can be perfectly safe & should be used wherever possible. Just as 40km/h in an 80km/h zone can be lethal – however by oversimplifying it you are glossing over this fact.

    My view is the focus on speed is enormously misguided, and here is why (you’ll like this – they’re stats!):

    - In metro NSW (5.1mil of 7.2mil population), there were 8 fatal crashes in 100km/h+ zones in ’09 (the most recent full-year figures). This is out of 408 total.
    - In COUNTRY NSW (2.1mil of 7.2), there were 140 fatal crashes in 100km/h+ zones. 140!!!

    This tells us a few things:
    1. The majority of all fatal accidents happen in speed zones under 100km/h. (contrary to the speed kills argument)
    2. Very, very few fatal accidents occur on high-speed metro roads. Why? Because these areas have dual carriageways. Proper road design. It is extremely safe traveling at higher speeds on roads like this….and relatively unsafe traveling on single carriageway roads at that speed. This is why Germany’s autobahns – where 200km/h+ is common – have a per billion vehicle km death toll of 3, whereas Australia’s is 6.5. When they’re flying around at twice our speed, their death toll is less than half our total. Why? Because their roads are designed well, and they’re taught how to drive properly.

    See what I mean? You can’t throw a blanket over this & say “speed kills” or “speed doesn’t kill”. I know it’s reassuring for you, but you can’t do it. There are too many other variables.

    Another stat for you. Since you seem to have all the stats there, go and have a look what happened in the NT in 2007. That was the first year the NT introduced speed limits on their rural highways. Previously, it was unlimited. The death toll ROSE 25%. I thought speed killed?

    Another one. A lot of cash is spent on speed kills advertising. Sure, it has to be addressed. But in causes of death in crashes, speed runs a distant forth place to drunk driving, failure to obey road rules (excl speeding – i.e. running red lights, stop signs, etc) and fatigue. Failure to obey road rules is by far the leading cause. Why aren’t we teaching people how to drive again?

    It’s just false logic. It SEEMS logical & nice & neat & simple to say “speed kills”. But it just massively oversimplifies what is a very complex problem. Sure, inappropriate speed is most definitely a contributing factor in a lot of fatalities, but it’s not as simple as you think.

  115. Shane
    21 Jan 11
    11:16 am

  116. @Ben. Sorry, I got you confused with Unwritten Rule re: pedestrian crossings. my mistake.

    I agree 100% that more driver training is needed. My driving test was woefully inadequate. I could’ve passed with 1/4 the training I’d had.

    I also agree that it’s a complex issue, but I would argue that it’s more complex than either of us give it credit for. After all, for every one of my arguments there is a refute but for everyone of your arguments there is a refute also. The majority of deaths occur at speeds less than 100km/h because the majority of driving is done at speeds less than 100km/h. This also happens in built up areas with more pedestrain involvement and distractions for drivers.

    Germany’s phenominally well designed and constructed roads are a fantastic ideal. But in a country the size of Australia to have six lanes running to and from every town on the Eastern Seaboard and across to the West is unrealistic. Eventually people will have to drive on smaller roads. In Germany that might mean a 50km trip. In Australia that might mean a 500km trip. While I would love to see safer roads (sealed roads and edges with ample room) all around the country, this is not economically possible unless Australia strikes the motherload of oil sometime soon. Even then, the logistical challenges would be overwhelming. New South Wales alone is over twice the size of Germany. Yes, the population difference is significant, but in relation to laying down roads, it is kilometres that matter, not how often they are driven on. It is not comparing apples with apples.

    As I addressed earlier, I don’t blindly accept the mantra that speed kills. But in Australia, where you can enounter a road that runs at 110km/h for 200km then transitions down to 80km/h through a small town, including a 40km/h school zone, then back up to 110km/h, there are many more variables than on the ideal. Germany’s roads may be held up as an ideal, but they are not attainable in Australia. The Northern Territory figures are an anomaly. The NT road toll jumps all over the place. Some years are worse than others but there is no trend to speak of, and certainly nothing statistically significant. In 1987, 84 people died on NT roads, compared with only 51 the following year, then 68 two years later. When dealing such a small sample, you can’t draw comparisons that inform policy. Maybe in 20 years we can say that speed limits on NT roads were a failure, but only when taking into account an increase/decrease in traffic, route changes etc… Until then the numbers are just too small.

    Ultimately, I agree that with all factors at play, speed is just one. And yes, booze and fatigue are more severe factors. But to deny that speed is a factor is disingenous. Of course speed is a factor. And to decry the government for putting up speed kills billboards, just because there could be a ‘Don’t Drink and Drive’ billboard instead, ignores the fact that many many people are dead or in wheelchairs today because they or their driver or the driver of another car was speeding. Yes, I agree that more investment in driver training and continued assessment is needed, but ultimately speed can catch out even very skilled drivers.

  117. AdGrunt
    21 Jan 11
    12:51 pm

  118. Shane,

    You still playing rather fast and loose with your stats – you quoted the poor Vicroads study which covered only two years.

    Now with 4 years of no statistically visible improvement in the NT road toll with speed limits, you suggest it will take twenty years to declare it a success / failure.

    No-one is suggesting that we have to have 6 lane highways everywhere, just where they do that the speed limit is relevant to the 85th percentile speed, otherwise dangerous behaviours like yours and the antithesis, tailgating, become inherent – this ends up making *having the speed limit you support itself more dangerous than the speeding it is trying to prevent.*

  119. Unwritten Rule
    21 Jan 11
    1:42 pm

  120. Driving tests should be harder to pass.

    There should be more emphasis on awareness and courtesy to fellow road users.

    Shane you make good points in your last post as does Ben.

    As for people ambling over Zebra crossings – perhaps we need pedestrian training? I will honk if they are ambling, again unless it is a little old lady and I will help them across.

    Peace to you all!

  121. Shane
    21 Jan 11
    2:24 pm

  122. True, absolutely, yet the Sliogeris stats (not from a poor study, mind you, but a peer-reviewed study) are at least close to statistically signficant since it relates to a difference of hundreds, rather than dozens. For example, in the four years after a particularly bad year (1989), deaths on Victoria’s roads dropped by more than half. I realise correlation does not prove causality, but from 1989 onwards the random breath-test and speed camera campaigns were prioritised and heavily publicised. So a difference of hundreds in Victoria (with a trend downwards) means more than a difference of a handful in NT (without a trend… yet).

    Ultimately, though, I’d argue that the weight of evidence is in favour of strictly policed speed limits. After all, the examples where limits are reduced show (if anything) a trend down in fatalities and serious injuries. The examples where limits are lifted or removed show (if anything) a rise in fatalities and serious injuries. It also seems that motoring associations and car manufacturers are the most vocal lobby groups looking for the raising or removal of limits, whereas academics, surgeons, politicians and scientists seem to agree that they are effective at addressing at least one major risk factor related to traffic collisions – speed.

    Personally, I’ll form my opinion after taking into account the weight of scientific evidence and data rather than the complaints, selective science and conspiracy theories spouted by car “enthusiasts.”

  123. Ben
    21 Jan 11
    4:24 pm

  124. Shane, 99% of the reason the death toll is trending downwards (despite a huge increase in population/vehicles on the road) is thanks to a raft of new car technologies becoming commonplace over the last 20 years (ABS, TC, airbags, improvements in crumple zone/side intrusion technology, etc), improvements in tyre construction and improved road construction.

    Motoring groups tend to feel (as I do) that speed limits can & should be increased, as they (like me) understand the dynamics of driving a lot better than most. I’d tend to side with an organisation that understands the topic well than an academic group that’s been commissioned by a government that earns/spends millions from/on speed cameras each year…I’m not sure why surgeons/politicians/scientists should be considered experts on driving either.

    Anyways, while 9/10 people amble along at the speed limit, completely unaware of their surroundings yet thinking they’re safe from any harm, you won’t see any notable change in the road toll. The only thing I can do is continue to build on the additional driver training & track driving I’ve done, and continue to be completely aware of what’s around me. It’s served me well so far.

  125. AdGrunt
    21 Jan 11
    5:51 pm

  126. @Shane – you’re not understanding. “Close to statistical significance” is being like half pregnant. It was statistically flawed which limits its use to (barely) proving the effect of reduction to 100 and increase to 110, not higher – it didn’t discount that a higher limit could be safer.

    You’re talking gibberish in your talk of tens, hundreds and trends. Then you talk about policing, when the nub is an *appropriate* limit in the first place.

    Your choice of inflammatory driving is helping none of this, either.

  127. Unwritten Rule
    22 Jan 11
    1:25 pm

  128. Check out this video on the Autobahn in Germany. See how all the drivers pull into the right hand lane. This enables fast lane to be free, thus making it safe to drive fast.
    It would appear that these drivers are totally aware of their surroundings and fellow road users.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O89UWHnFUl0

  129. Luke
    23 Jan 11
    11:27 pm

  130. there is too much focus on speed and not enough focus on bad driving.
    the is a lot of places where the speed limit is not appropriate for the conditions and drivers should be encouraged to drive to the conditions and slow down for bad conditions and go a bit quicker is great conditions.

  131. Charmaine Kent
    26 Jan 11
    9:30 pm

  132. Everyone should support this tiny town, instead of being negative about speeding and the like why don’t we increase the legal driving age to al least 21. This will bring the yahoo hoons out fighting.

    It is sad to say that the young females are more aggressive than the young bucks, about time someone took them on.

  133. Paul
    27 Jan 11
    5:19 pm

  134. Shane, just come out and admit it…you ARE Harold Scruby, aren’t you ?

  135. itsdra
    30 Jan 11
    3:03 pm

  136. Just saw the TV ad, I am not sure how I’ve missed this until now but very clever campaign! Hopefully they use it for even better cause next time. Either way they have upped the creativity standard for other social change campaigns. I wish blood and organ donation campaigns were treated with as much emphasis as ‘speed kills’. Worthy campaign wasted on a cause that’s already been done over and over.