Interesting website about speeding.

[toodles]

Stuffing around the net and found this interesting read about speeding laws in Australia. Almost didn't want to post it here as I'm anticipating some daft comments. Anyway, I know S. and some others are interested in this stuff so check it out...

http://www.speedingisbullshit.com/index.php

[CHEWY]

What would happen if all forms of revenue raising through speeding were dropped?
wed probably have to pay higher taxs
I'd rather get caught out and have to pay a small fine every now and then than get docked every week with extra tax..

[scblack]

What would happen if all forms of revenue raising through speeding were dropped?
wed probably have to pay higher taxs
I'd rather get caught out and have to pay a small fine every now and then than get docked every week with extra tax..

But at least taxes would be fair and upfront, not bullshitting about safety, like they do now.

The highest revenue raising cameras in NSW are THREE cameras on the approaches to the Spit Bridge at Mosman. In peak hour, avarage speed would be lucky to be 20kmh, but these cameras make up the most revenue.

Toodles you come up with some interesting stuff - keep it coming!

[Kona.S.P]

I have to agree with the site, but increasing the speed limit to 140 is a little drastic, but the point that is made about giving warning before speed cameras and mainly focusing on putting them around school zones is a good idea.

[toodles]

mainly focusing on putting them around school zones is a good idea.

Yeah my biggest problem with speed camera is that they get put in areas where people are likely to be speeding. Sounds like commonsense, but I'm talking about areas where rational motorists have decided that it's harmless going a few K's faster, or areas where you might be rolling down a slight decline approaching a flat area and you pick up 5 or 10 K's rather than ride the brakes excessively. IMO, they should be put where speed poses a risk - school and hospital zones and residential streets where drivers tend to "rat run" to avoid traffic on major roads.

Putting them where you will catch the most drivers, rather than the most dangerous drivers seems too much like revenue raising to me.

[johnny]

^^^^yeah no shit. They put them on so many long straights down here, far from being black spots. I've also heard that they may be puting speed cameras at traffic lights to catch those who crank it up to get through that orange light. Don't know if it's true, haven't had time to check your site yet either. But I know I've got another 6 weeks before I get my lisence back........... :mad:

[99_FGT]

Nice Site - I posted it up in GTRydaz (for Forester GT and XT owners) with a little aside about safe speeding. I can travel past a speed camera and not get booked - in my six year old car with ABS, AWD, good tyres and brakes and (as a last resort) dual airbags - at the same speed as a bogan in an HQ308 with three bald tyres - the reason the fourth isn't bald? It is a retread, that is half the width and a different size to the other three. And he won't be booked either. Ridiculous. :confused:
Unfortunately you need to cater for the lowest common denominator - which on the roads is quite low.
I believe there is such a thing as safe speeding. Here in Tassie, the roads are generally 100km/h. But there are roads that you are lucky to maintain 80 - or even 60 on. This is why so many big islanders get in to trouble. (Further aside, the record for getting off the Spirit, hiring a car and writing it off is 12 minutes). Yet there are roads that I am quite comfortable to do 140+ on. They are straight, wide, in rural areas, with low traffic volume and very good visibility to both sides of the road.
Hope I haven't offended any bogans, and I do not want a lecture about how I shouldn't speed.
Al..
ps Any Tassie cops reading this - it's all made up - honest :rolleyes:

[Gonzo]

I have to agree with the site, but increasing the speed limit to 140 is a little drastic, but the point that is made about giving warning before speed cameras and mainly focusing on putting them around school zones is a good idea.

It would actually be more dangerous to have speed cameras near school zones or where people are. Read the article that was on the site.

Don't cross near cameras warns Safe Speed

ABD.org
8th October 2004

» link to article

Following press reports this week regarding the dangers of driver distraction posed by speed cameras, the Association of British Drivers (ABD) has issued a press release entitled: "Don't cross near cameras says road safety group". Safe Speed strongly supports this ABD initiative.

Safe Speed explains: Speed cameras are especially distracting to drivers. Irrespective of whether or not they are exceeding the speed limit, almost every driver will be highly aware of the camera, he'll check his speedo, look at the camera, think about the camera, check his speedo again, and many will even watch the mirror just to make sure that they haven't been flashed.

Road safety depends on drivers paying full attention to the road ahead, but speed cameras distract them to varying degrees. If a driver isn't looking ahead, he might not see a pedestrian until it is too late. Most drivers see road side speed cameras as a threat that must be dealt with. Dealing with the threat involves extra speedo checks, and valuable attention diverted from the road ahead.

So the message for pedestrians is clear. They should always choose a place to cross the road where drivers are not likely to be distracted by a speed camera - and that means crossing well away from any camera.

Checking the speedo take around one second - slightly more for older drivers or tired drivers. In one second you travel 44 feet or about 3 car lengths. If you are starting to check your speedo when a pedestrian steps into the road it will take an extra 44 feet to stop. Assuming a speed of 30mph, this brings you to rest at the same point as braking from 42mph without the distraction of the speedo check. Our straw poll survey suggests that 70% of drivers check their speedos THREE OR MORE times in the immediate vicinity of a speed camera.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign comments: "It isn't just checking the speedo that causes extra danger near a speed camera. We see panic braking even from drivers at legal speeds because they just are not certain enough of the speed limit to risk 25% of their driving licence. We are also very concerned about drivers' mental priorities where there are speed cameras. What are drivers thinking about as they pass a speed camera? They're thinking about the camera, aren't they? We'd much rather they were thinking about the road ahead."

Paul continues: "It's often asked: 'why aren't there more cameras outside schools?' Well, on present evidence, the last place I'd install a speed camera is outside a school. We need drivers looking out for kids, not staring at their speedos.

[Tomas]

My brother was telling me about a system they implimented/are implimenting in the UK at the moment. You see a speed camera, it takes a capture of your numberplate. 5km down the road, it picks up your number plate again. If your average speed > speed limit - your gone. Not sure what relevance this has, but it must have some, i just cant see it. Its friday.

[GoingDHfast]

My brother was telling me about a system they implimented/are implimenting in the UK at the moment. You see a speed camera, it takes a capture of your numberplate. 5km down the road, it picks up your number plate again. If your average speed > speed limit - your gone. Not sure what relevance this has, but it must have some, i just cant see it. Its friday.

Interstate truck drivers apparently get measured in the same way - except we're talking about 100's of km's between points. Dont know how true this is or what sort of fines they would get, but I imagine they'd be huge considering what it takes to break the speed limit consistantly for a long time!

[johnny]

Years ago in NSW they painted lines at 100 metre intervals on freeways and measured your time over these increments to work out whether you were speeding..........from a plane! :eek:

Who said pigs don't fly? :D

It got scrapped within 12 months. Money well spent.

[Superman]

ok, so if its just to raise revenues, why adevertise not to speed, why advertise to wipe off 5, wouldnt this just lower the income of speeding fines. just dont speed, and you'll be fine!

but i do reckon that on the hume fwy, from wodonga onwards [honestly, the nsw bit is shit!(compared to the hume)] that there could be a raise in speed limit, or even unlimited in certain areas. in england, theres those roads with no speed limits(or those that just arent followed) and theres more crashes on them than here, but they are very busy compared to say the hume fwy.

[Mahoney_007]

Interstate truck drivers apparently get measured in the same way - except we're talking about 100's of km's between points. Dont know how true this is or what sort of fines they would get, but I imagine they'd be huge considering what it takes to break the speed limit consistantly for a long time!

They also have to keep a log book of their hours and km's driven per hours slept....until they get to WA then they throw it out the window cause the laws arnt they same across the country.

I love that shit, the morons who actually believe wiping off 5 will save some lifes are kidding themselves. Driver training is the key to this whole mess. Why the hell are you taught emergency breaking and have to pass it in a test on a motorcycle but NOT in a car? Maybe because if everyone knew how to STOP their car properly we could all easily do the 140+km down the freeways safely.

The ad on TV with the 2 Fords, one doing 60 and one doing 65, is the biggest crock of shit I have ever seen in my life, so many factors have been left out of the equation its not funny. Also the quick shot of the guy going 65 with the wind in his hair and looking kinda spooked whilst the guy going 60 is laid back and relaxed is total crap. Who do you think is going to actually SEE that truck first the guy toodling along at 60 with his miond on his work/girlfirend/what he had for lunch, or the guy with his eyes wired and driving on the point of his arse? Yeah thats right I doubt the bloke not concentrating would even see the fucking thing.

And why the hell does it take so damn long for them to stop, that distance is crapola to the max, Ive done driver safety training I know how far a car takes to stop at 60 and its not the distance they show you on TV. Yes if your doing 60 and I'm doing 80 I will take longer to stop but if you dont see the kid/truck whatever 1st and I hit the brakes 1/2 second before you, guess what happens?

REACTION TIME people we have all seen drag racing, a fast car dont mean shit unless you have adequate reaction time. Same applies for breaking.

And quite simply why are you allowed to pull out in front of people, block the right hand land, turn without indicating, NOT KNOW HOW TO REVERSE YOUR CAR OUT OF A PARKING SPACE or just generally drive like an absolute cock smoker and not get fined but 5 km's over the limit and your worse than a guy who breaks into a persons house ("he may wreck the joint but you may kill someone")......... FUCK OFF your not fooling me wankers.

[Daver]

Maybe i have missed the point entirely, but
"Put speed cameras where they actually serve a purpose, like school zones. Make all speed cameras clearly marked before the detection area

This makes no sense to me at all. If the Speed cameras are used entirely for revenue making then why should they give notice of them? I don't know how many times i've driven up roads only to see a sign saying "speed camera ahead" and i've not slowed down.

If i was wanting to raise revenue then i'd remove the signs, that way speed cameras might do their job. All it shows is that if you are actually caught speeding by a fixed camera than you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, given the blatant warnings for them.

[lotec]

thats just in NSW dave, dont know about other states but i know in canberra you just have signs saying "speed cameras used in this area" but not warning you of exactly where they are.

[wombat]

The ad on TV with the 2 Fords, one doing 60 and one doing 65, is the biggest crock of shit I have ever seen in my life, so many factors have been left out of the equation its not funny. Also the quick shot of the guy going 65 with the wind in his hair and looking kinda spooked whilst the guy going 60 is laid back and relaxed is total crap. Who do you think is going to actually SEE that truck first the guy toodling along at 60 with his miond on his work/girlfirend/what he had for lunch, or the guy with his eyes wired and driving on the point of his arse? Yeah thats right I doubt the bloke not concentrating would even see the fucking thing.

I hate the "+5km/h makes you a baby killer" mindset as much as the rest of you here, but with all due respect I think you completely missed the point of that ad.

You're right, it doesn't take into account varying reaction times, or varying conditions, but THAT IS THE POINT. The whole idea behind the ad was to try and show how speed alone affects your stopping times, regardless of everything else.

Think of it like this: the comparison they're doing is like you going down the road at 60km/h and doing an emergency stop at a given point, then turning around, going back to where you started, and repeating the process travelling 5km/h faster. Your reaction times will be indentical (in theory) as will the car's braking performance etc. The only variable is the speed; that's the way any good experiment needs to be done: controlling other variables so that the variable you're interested in can be monitored.

You talk about the looks on the driver's faces, but I hope you'd realise that that is compeltely irrelevant, the outcome presented in that ad is based purely on calculations, the footage is just a representation so that we can all understand the concept within the 30 seconds they have to show us. (I do agree though that they are portrayed differently, which isn't cool because that comes back to a subjective judgement; the baby killer thing again).

I'll never agree that stricter speed limits are a better solution than driver education and training, but out of all the ads that the safety groups have thrown at us, the one you mentioned in IMO by far the best of them. It is based on real facts, and is brillantly shot and presented.

[tomass]

ANARCHY, ANARCHY... thats all that site is about

[S.]

ANARCHY, ANARCHY... thats all that site is about

No... actually it's about speeding. If you think that it promotes anarchy, I think you need to go back and read it again.

I agree with most of the stuff said on that site. Speeding fines = 99% bullshit. The "wipe off five and save a life" stuff is such crap, I say instead "don't be thrifty, speed up fifty". They (particularly the victorian state gov't - not sure what NSW is like) make out that being 5km/h over the (blanket) limit is homocidal. "It's not an accident.... because he was speeding" (worst ad ever by the way, whoever made that should have been shot). Moving on from that ad, how can you place a blanket limit on roads, rounded off to the nearest 10km/h, applicable for all vehicles in all conditions, then claim that to be 5km/h over the limit makes you a potential murderer? Too many people are obsessed with simply making people drive slower. Slower doesn't necessitate safer, there are just too many factors (the main one IMO being attentiveness) to claim that. Look at Italy, they bumped the speed limits on their freeways UP to 150km/h because they found that the increased attention at higher speed led to less crashes. Holy shit, realism somehow infiltrated a government somewhere...

Then we have the morons writing in to the Herald Sun about how they know about physics and that heavier vehicles (4wds usually bear the brunt of such letters) should have to drive slower because increased mass = more inertia = increased stopping distance (one particular letter claimed that this is why motorbikes stop faster than cars... must have been a particularly awesome motorbike with backwards facing rockets or something). Yep, nice going dickheads, obviously you've taken all factors into account.

Argh. Let Darwinism loose, and help it along the way by culling your local politicians.

[bazza]

or you could just read the sign and drive what it says. gwaddddddddddd. i still reakon highways in open high visibility areas should be 120. either that or more people should use pubilic transport and ride bikes instead of getting road rage.

[Mahoney_007]

I hate the "+5km/h makes you a baby killer" mindset as much as the rest of you here, but with all due respect I think you completely missed the point of that ad.

You're right, it doesn't take into account varying reaction times, or varying conditions, but THAT IS THE POINT. The whole idea behind the ad was to try and show how speed alone affects your stopping times, regardless of everything else.

Think of it like this: the comparison they're doing is like you going down the road at 60km/h and doing an emergency stop at a given point, then turning around, going back to where you started, and repeating the process travelling 5km/h faster. Your reaction times will be indentical (in theory) as will the car's braking performance etc. The only variable is the speed; that's the way any good experiment needs to be done: controlling other variables so that the variable you're interested in can be monitored.

You talk about the looks on the driver's faces, but I hope you'd realise that that is compeltely irrelevant, the outcome presented in that ad is based purely on calculations, the footage is just a representation so that we can all understand the concept within the 30 seconds they have to show us. (I do agree though that they are portrayed differently, which isn't cool because that comes back to a subjective judgement; the baby killer thing again).

I'll never agree that stricter speed limits are a better solution than driver education and training, but out of all the ads that the safety groups have thrown at us, the one you mentioned in IMO by far the best of them. It is based on real facts, and is brillantly shot and presented.

Yes well I think I'll have to admit you have got me in a spot there.....

But as you have also touched on its the underlying message that sticks out to me, and thats what shits me "the baby killer tag". Or the "a home burglar is better than a speeding motorist" tag.

I suppose I have to say yes the ad is shot very well but why not show it in real time and no unneccasary bullshit cut shots of drivers faces? The point of the ad is very clear its the "propoganda" surrounding it I cant stand.

I believe a crap driver is ALOT worse than a speeding motorist.

[Simo]

I love that shit, the morons who actually believe wiping off 5 will save some lifes are kidding themselves. Driver training is the key to this whole mess.

but our driver training sucks, therefore 5 km/h does make a difference.

[donthucktoflat]

Holy shit, realism somehow infiltrated a government somewhere...



uh oh, next they'll bedoing something SENSIBLE!:eek:

Simo, you said our driver training sucks? well i say WHAT driver training. it is not mandatory to complete any course except for road ready (learn the road rules.. nothing about driving.. and to pass tou have to get 35/37 questions right in a piss easy test) which is an absolute crock. it is possible, in the ACT to get your full license without driving a car.. as long as you can write their shit right, you can get a license.. madness. needless to say, this isn't how most people do it but you can if you REALLY want to.

re-iterating on what S. said, speed isn't the killer. poor road conditions isnt the killer. Australia has some truely awesome roads. out in SA there are roads with a speed limit of 100 that should be about 150-170. same with the hume hwy. 8 lane concrete smooth as a baby's bum road at 110? ridiculous.. i reckon autobahn'ing the sucker would be a grand idea think about it, sydney to canberra in 2 hours... sydney to Melbourne in 4.. AND IN SAFETY!

cars are getting better, brakes are getting better (hell, even drivers are (at least there ARE tests now! to get his license my dad had to take the coppers son to swimming lessons, watch him for half an hour and drive back to the cop shop and if he did this without crashing or killing the kid he got his license) ) SO WHY ARE SPEED LIMITS DECREASING???

[Ryan]

Simo, you said our driver training sucks? well i say WHAT driver training. it is not mandatory to complete any course except for road ready (learn the road rules.. nothing about driving.. and to pass tou have to get 35/37 questions right in a piss easy test) which is an absolute crock. it is possible, in the ACT to get your full license without driving a car.. as long as you can write their shit right, you can get a license.. madness. needless to say, this isn't how most people do it but you can if you REALLY want to.


Eh? Are you saying there's no actual "Take you out in a car to see if you can actually drive" test in Canberra? If so, that's fucking crazy! Do they do pilots licenses too?

[wombat]

poor road conditions isnt the killer.
Well, you must be lucky enough to not have to drive on our vast network of shithouse roads.

[S.]

uh oh, next they'll bedoing something SENSIBLE!:eek:

Simo, you said our driver training sucks? well i say WHAT driver training. it is not mandatory to complete any course except for road ready (learn the road rules.. nothing about driving.. and to pass tou have to get 35/37 questions right in a piss easy test) which is an absolute crock. it is possible, in the ACT to get your full license without driving a car.. as long as you can write their shit right, you can get a license.. madness. needless to say, this isn't how most people do it but you can if you REALLY want to.

re-iterating on what S. said, speed isn't the killer. poor road conditions isnt the killer. Australia has some truely awesome roads. out in SA there are roads with a speed limit of 100 that should be about 150-170. same with the hume hwy. 8 lane concrete smooth as a baby's bum road at 110? ridiculous.. i reckon autobahn'ing the sucker would be a grand idea think about it, sydney to canberra in 2 hours... sydney to Melbourne in 4.. AND IN SAFETY!

cars are getting better, brakes are getting better (hell, even drivers are (at least there ARE tests now! to get his license my dad had to take the coppers son to swimming lessons, watch him for half an hour and drive back to the cop shop and if he did this without crashing or killing the kid he got his license) ) SO WHY ARE SPEED LIMITS DECREASING???

You just restored some portion of my faith that not everyone is retarded. Thanks.

And yeah down here we have a driving component to our licence tests, but all they test is rigid adherence to relatively trivial rules, and nothing to do with whether you can control the car safely or whether you're really paying attention to what's going on around you. It's exceptionally hard to *really* test that stuff without putting somebody's life in danger though (although you could argue that that's the whole point, and if they fail, well they were gonna get killed quickly anyway... actually, that'd be awesome). Having a proper, intensive training course is IMO the best way to train people to actually drive well and be able to control their cars. My belief (and I can't *really* substantiate this with any evidence, only my own logic) is that most crashes are caused by either inattentiveness or a combination of occurrences that the driver can't keep track of and thus can't react to. Obviously a few are caused by inappropriate speed on winding roads (or wet roads), going through red lights/stop signs etc, but I don't know what proportion of all accidents those would make up... however I suspect it's a relatively low number. None of this stuff gets tested or taught to you however (unless you pay for private lessons and go out of your way to make sure you learn that kind of stuff specifically, which is still hard). How many drivers really know what's gonna happen if their car breaks traction unexpectedly? I'd say about 25%, as a very optimistic figure. Inexperience only compounds the problem.

[S.]

Well, you must be lucky enough to not have to drive on our vast network of shithouse roads.

Pfft, shit roads build character and sphincter strength.

[Shintaro]

It would be great if there were simply advisory speed limits for corners, intersections, roundabouts etc and more realistic speed limits in suburbia (60-90).

Freeway driving IMO is way too slow, and a constant 110km/h although may seem safe, I don't think it helps keep the drivers interest and alertness levels revved up for 6+ hour drives. Sure the scenery may look nice, but the driver has very little to do but look and steer. If advisory speed limits were used to suggest cornering speeds and bottlenecks etc, then the driver would travel at a speeds they are comfortable with (150), and in situations such as long hill climbs, allow for an increase in speed to assist with a hill climb.

The same way there are transit lanes at different hours of the day, speed limits outside rush hour (before 6.30AM, after 9PM) should increase by about 20km/h;

[nickz]

60-90 in suburbia? You're kidding. Define suburbia and that might seem more realistic. And driving at speeds that you are comfortable with (150), well why doesn't everyone do that so you've guys doing 150, some doing 200 and some doing 80, as they might feel comfortable driving slower. Too many people are either in too much of a rush or trying to justify the purchase of their hotted up car by wanting to drive fast or more toward the full potential of their car. I disagree with putting speed cameras down hill and yes it seems like revenue raising, but christ if people were vigilant and controlled the vehicle they are driving, they wouldn't get done. Control yourself and your car and you won't get *caught* speeding where they put the cameras. The camera I truly disagree with is the one westbound on the M4 right where it changes from 100 to 90 ( I think) as that really does seem like a revenue raising trap.

[nickz]

I think my own life and lives of whoever else is in the car which I am controling is infinite incentive to pay attention to the road and not stuff up. Music helps too though.

[Shintaro]

Speed limits bellow 60 seem unjustified to me 99% of the time. Speed limits have decreased for many roads almost as if to follow trend than create safer motoring.

Having held a drivers licence for over 10 years, many drivers approach to speeding is 10km/s over the limit anytime anywhere. I think excessive speeding is dangerous, but the defined speed limits are too low.

When it comes to freeway driving, obviously the risk of being fined slows drivers down, and this obviously creates safer roads for everyone (in theory). However there are still drivers who will exceed the speed limit excessively, and the reason is usually because they don't see the need to be speed limited on endless gunbarell highways. There are sections of freeway that could have a speedlimit of 150 without dramatically affecting the way people drive (just think 3 lanes, divided road straight for 100's of km/s).

[nickz]

Yeah but we don't have gunbarrel-straight highways anywhere except central Australia, where they had a the appropriate landscape to have such highways. At 150, as I'm sure you know as you've been driving for ages, your reaction time is reduced by quite a fair bit, so if you're confident doing that speed and being able to react to emergency stopping or avoiding an unexpected object/animal on the road, that one thing. The majority of drivers out there would not be capable of safely conducting their car in an emergency at 150 an so there has to be a limit which is comfortable for the majority of drivers, not for the few that want to go faster because they feel more capable. In suburban streets, where kids play, balls roll out onto streets, unexpected stuff happens, 60 is pretty much the safe limit IMO, I can't see it being safe for people to do more than 60 on those streets .

[naz]

its a big fucken conspiracy better get asio onto it quick smart.

speed camera's have fuck all on rail cops, there the ones who should be fucked off (anger over 800$ fine)

[Shintaro]

I guess I'm more thinking about being annoyed at having speed limits applied than thinking when it's unsafe to drive fast.

Road Work Zones of 40 km/h for suburban or around 80 km/h on highways are definantly a worthy speed limit as it's one thing to be driving with fast trafiic and another to be standing in the lane next to fast traffic.

I am more concerned about permanent speed limits that are potentially too slow under normal driving conditions.

I'm cool with the limits as they are (honestly), yet think that there are alot of 50 zones that can handle 60, and alot of 60 zones that can handle 70, and alot of 70 zones that can handle 80 or 90.

I think that the general road rules could be that speed limits are there as an advisory, yet a speeding tollerance buffer of +10km/h should be available, and even then you'd have to be really driving like a moron to cop a fine. That's my rant!

[nickz]

^^Fair enough! What really shits me is when they leave a construction zone limit of 40 or 60 in place weeks after they've finished!

[lotec]

then we have the morons writing in to the Herald Sun about how they know about physics and that heavier vehicles (4wds usually bear the brunt of such letters) should have to drive slower because increased mass = more inertia = increased stopping distance (one particular letter claimed that this is why motorbikes stop faster than cars... must have been a particularly awesome motorbike with backwards facing rockets or something). Yep, nice going dickheads, obviously you've taken all factors into account.
things like that really annoy me, its just such aload of crap i dont know specs on brakes etc of all cars but what about the nwer 4wds, the brakes on them are much better than on a lot of smaller cars, especially when you get upmarket, porsche cayenne as much as i hate them theyll stop faster than most family cars, the new range rover sport, 6 pot brembos with 15" rotors, put that at the same speed as a family car i can pretty much guarantee what can stop faster, even more common 4wds have much better brakes than a lot of cars, something mum noticed when we were test driving cars a while back, toyota landcruiser about the most common thing out there, she was just amazed by the power the brakes had for the size of the car... its just crap these idiots that have NFI and try to get 4wds banned :mad:

[Daver]

things like that really annoy me, its just such aload of crap i dont know specs on brakes etc of all cars but what about the nwer 4wds, the brakes on them are much better than on a lot of smaller cars, especially when you get upmarket, porsche cayenne as much as i hate them theyll stop faster than most family cars, the new range rover sport, 6 pot brembos with 15" rotors, put that at the same speed as a family car i can pretty much guarantee what can stop faster, even more common 4wds have much better brakes than a lot of cars, something mum noticed when we were test driving cars a while back, toyota landcruiser about the most common thing out there, she was just amazed by the power the brakes had for the size of the car... its just crap these idiots that have NFI and try to get 4wds banned :mad:

Dude it's only the council- they're a bunch of second rate people with too much spare time who get paid f**k all. They have no power and luckily, they're too stupid to use it properly.

[naz]

things like that really annoy me, its just such aload of crap i dont know specs on brakes etc of all cars but what about the nwer 4wds, the brakes on them are much better than on a lot of smaller cars, especially when you get upmarket, porsche cayenne as much as i hate them theyll stop faster than most family cars, the new range rover sport, 6 pot brembos with 15" rotors, put that at the same speed as a family car i can pretty much guarantee what can stop faster, even more common 4wds have much better brakes than a lot of cars, something mum noticed when we were test driving cars a while back, toyota landcruiser about the most common thing out there, she was just amazed by the power the brakes had for the size of the car... its just crap these idiots that have NFI and try to get 4wds banned :mad:

just like you and riding? nfi?

[lotec]

just like you and riding? nfi?
shuddup roadie hoe.

[naz]

shuddup roadie hoe.

exactly my point nfi. ;)

[thewayitis]

Quite honestly NSW roads are shithouse. When we went to Thredbo this year for the interschools, you could tell as soon as you got to NSW because the roads were so bad. I'll shake anyones hand who makes it to Thredbo from victoria during snow season, because it must be a absolute bitch to drive with snow. The hume highway on the way there would have to be the worlds most boring road i have ever traveled on. Driving it makes you bored shitless. you do start to sit on 120-130, hell we even had a cop car pass us and it would of had to been doing at least 150.


When I went to queensland last year for a high performance surfing camp, my coach got me from coolangatta airport to the high performance center in about 10mins. considering this was ment to take 20 mins and there were 3 stationary speed cameras on the way, he did pretty well IMO. Everytime he knew there was a speed camera he would slow down and then speed up around the corner. These were signposted ones. So that sorta defies the point of them in the first place