Police fining people for not carrying chains

Submitted: Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 20:45
ThreadID: 24816 Views:3169 Replies:9 FollowUps:27
This Thread has been Archived
Yep, went to Falls Creek today and ironically enough they were targetting 4wds. If you weren't carrying chains you got a fine and sent back down the mountain. That would make your day considering it was a fantastic day on the mountain with a nice 20+ cm of fresh snow!!

Should be heaps at Mt Skene for you guys next weekend.

Leroy
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Mike Harding - Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 20:58

Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 20:58
I live in fear of the Victorian police - consider yourself luck they didn't shoot you - they often do.

Is it required to carry chains to Mount Skene - and if not, why not?

Actually I was somewhere north of Dargo a year or two back in the snow and I didn't have chains then - of course they were not required in that area - is the snow different in Falls Creek? Or is the whole thing a bit silly?

Mike Harding
AnswerID: 120840

Follow Up By: Member - Crazie (VIC) - Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 22:17

Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 22:17
Mike

It is my understanding that by law you are required to carry snow chains in the apline resort areas. I do no think Mt Skene is covered by these resort areas, but could be wrong. Before entering these areas, there are plenty of signs informing you not to pass the post without chains.

Think the chains are required for 4wd's if there are heavy dumps while you are up there or the road is iced over.
cheers
0
FollowupID: 375904

Follow Up By: Leroy - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:10

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:10
Mikie,

Alpine resorts only.

LEroy
0
FollowupID: 375975

Reply By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 22:32

Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 22:32
Is this a Victorian thing requiring 4WD to carry chains - certainly not the case in the NSW alpine resorts/regions.
AnswerID: 120855

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 23:01

Sunday, Jul 17, 2005 at 23:01
must be a Victorian thing, havnt heard of needing chains round here (there was actually some snow just south of where i am) :)
AnswerID: 120862

Reply By: geocacher (djcache) - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 00:32

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 00:32
Please don't forget that 4wd owners don't all know how to drive their 4wds, and that most (99.9%) of Australian drivers would be unlikely to drive in these sort of conditions ever, and those that do would only fit chains a handfull of times a year. Not all 4wds have appropriate tyres either.

I have worked at Falls Creek on the entrance station, in the carpark and skied there since I moved there as a kid in 1982.

I have been up Falls Creek when chains were needed from Cranky Charlie up, and up Hotham when they've been needed from just above Harrietville.

I have been asked by a Toorak tractor driver if I knew how to put his vehicle into 4wd (permanent 4wd vehicle too - duh!) and have made good money fitting chains for others.

I have seen ill fitting chains do hundreds if not thousands of dollars to vehicles including one vehicle with a holed fuel tank.

I have seen 4wds (& 2wds) off the side of the road in the trees on roads that I would be happy driving a 2wd without chains on. I have seen 4wds (& 2wds) buried in the embankment and bounce off the Sasafras guard rail in conditions where others were fitting chains.

The laws are there because in some conditions when the roads turn to pure ice - even the 4wds NEED chains even if only to get off the skating rink that the carpark has become, or just to get direction from steering input. Not common but it happens.

The laws are there to protect me and my family from the idiot coming down the hill as I'm going up, who has assumed that because he has a 4wd he won't need them so he won't carry them.

You wouldn't beleive some of the dumb things I have seen on that particular road in the past 23 years.

Please don't give opinions here that may prompt others to disregard what is a sensible safety requirement which like most laws is aimed at the lowest common denominator. You might be coming the other way.

Enforcement policy regarding fitting of chains on AWD vehicles have changed in Victoria recently too to address the Honda CRV's and similar that are pseudo AWD.

The fines for not carrying them, and the inconvenience of being kicked off the hill are good incentives for people to do so.

Don't forget either that the several warning signs about not passing certain points without carrying them are about 8' by 6' too - hard to miss. Don't feel too sorry for the d!ckheads that ignore them.

Dave
AnswerID: 120866

Follow Up By: D-Jack - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:09

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:09
Well said Dave.
0
FollowupID: 375920

Follow Up By: Member - Andrew(WA) - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:49

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:49
I 2nd that!

Was going to have a spray myself but you covered it well 'geo'. And I don't even live near the snow.

A good lesson in how a lack of common sense creates common problems. I'll leave it at that.

0
FollowupID: 375921

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:20

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:20
seeing as i havnt seen snow since 1977 forgive the dumb question but it seems from these posts it is only 4wd that have to have chains? I am a touch confused as surly a 2wd would need them more/as much
0
FollowupID: 375922

Follow Up By: Skinny- Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:04

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:04
Hi Dave, well said. By the way I had a look at your profile and just loved the hinged fridge slide. I have a waeco 60 and it is very tall and have trouble seeing in it and the Mrs has trouble packing it at times if we put other bits in the back first.

will look at a hinge version i think, nice work.

Skinny
0
FollowupID: 375940

Follow Up By: Leroy - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:25

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:25
Everyone has to carry chains Davoe. Being a 4wd forum I supose the empesis is more on them than 2wd.

Leroy
0
FollowupID: 375979

Reply By: Bega Photographer - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:24

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:24
Hi.

In NSW the snow fields are in the Kosciuczko National Park. There are big signs in the park with similar messages to Victoria and I believe there is a $200 fine.

Came home through Canberra yesterday, sooner than go over the mountains without chains, in the car (2WD).

Regards,
Laurie.
AnswerID: 120870

Reply By: Well 55 - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:48

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:48
The safest way is to carry chains in a 4WD if you go any where the high country with the likely hood of snow.

I heard on the radio last week end that cars and 4WD required chains from just south of Cooma. I had 4" of snow at Captains Flat that weekend at 1050m elevation.

It was mentioned that both 4WD & cars are required to carry chains into Kos NP. Good advice I reckon.
AnswerID: 120875

Reply By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 08:34

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 08:34
Interesting response geocacher - I was simply asking a question not inviting a lecture about the pros and cons of chains for 4WDs in the snow country. I don't necessarily disagree with the regs but I was just asking why in Vic and not in NSW - are the conditions likely to be the same?
AnswerID: 120885

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 15:53

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 15:53
Sorry for the lecture. Can I pose a different question?

Why aren't all the road rules the same nationally?

With the exception of the speed limits in NT I can't see any good reason why not.

Even the speed limit thing in the NT is moronic. Why on earth would you increase your accident risk exponentially in an area where the distance to emergency services is so great? (Unless you have a death wish ... or really really want to put a lift kit and muddies on an electric wheel chair!) Double the speed = four times the impact

The conditions in NSW alpine areas and Victorian alpine areas would differ very little. I think you would find that most sensible snow goers in NSW would carry chains in their 4wds though that is an assumption rather than something that I can state as fact. I think the Vic laws are better on this issue.

Though there is confusion in Vic about what is by definition a 4wd when it comes to being directed to fit chains.

Basically if you have any means of locking it into 4wd (button, lever & auto hubs, lever & manual hubs) you don't have to fit chains when 2wd vehicles are fitting them. You will still encounter conditions where 4wds are also directed to fit chains - to front wheels in very icy conditions.

TIP: If hiring chains make sure you are either shown how to fit them to your vehicle by the hirer - or if you know fit them yourself. I have seen too many times people who have just grabbed chains at the hire only to find that when they come to fit them they aren't the right ones.

When I was working in ski hires in Mount Beauty as a teenager the boss used to go ballistic if we didn't make sure they fit.

Dave
0
FollowupID: 375998

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 17:42

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 17:42
"Even the speed limit thing in the NT is moronic. Why on earth would you increase your accident risk exponentially in an area where the distance to emergency services is so great? (Unless you have a death wish ... or really really want to put a lift kit and muddies on an electric wheel chair!) Double the speed = four times the impact "

Strange how NT has the lowest traffic related mortality rate per captia in Australia. And before you argue, think of WA which has very similar roads/conditions/distances and 110km/hr speed limits with natzi cops and a higher fatality rate!.... Moronic indeed... Personally I think they are the only state or territory where the government is'nt obsessed in the continuation of misleading the public into believing all of this nonsense.
0
FollowupID: 376026

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 22:41

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 22:41
Hi Jeff,

It is interesting but you need to consider conditions and occupancy.

The NT has something that predominantly no other state has:

*Nothing to hit when you leave the road (grossly fewer powerpoles, 30cm+ dia tree trunks, fences, structures)
*Less cars per 1000km of road therefore far less chance of head on collisions
*Very few intersections on major highways therefore less intersectional collisions, and those intersections are seldom trafficked.
*Lower vehicle occupancy rates
*Higher percentage of short commutes in outlying communities as there is nothing 20-80km out of town to travel to or from
*Lower percentage of guard rail per 1000km

Predominantly the road toll in the heavily populated states is made up of single vehicle accidents hitting immovable objects - trees, powerpoles etc, and accidents involving another vehicle - either head on or at intersection.

Further to that, most of the traffic that I have observed in the territory travels at similar speeds to the other states with the exception of the few who travel above it.

With the larger proportion of traffic travelling at "normal" highway speeds, and all of the factors I have mentioned above it makes perfect sense that the road toll per capita is lower than other states.

A more valuable statistical comparison to consider to continue this discussion would be to breakdown the fatality figures to analyse what the proportion of NT road deaths occur when gross speed is a contributing factor.

Vehicle safety standards for Australian Design Rule frontal impact are based around hitting a parked car at 96km per hour. In this type of collision there are two crumple zones absorbing the impact and increasing the deceleration time.

This is the equivalent of a head on between two cars travelling at 48kmh each. What is the likely hood of surviving a head on between two cars travelling at 150kmh? Pretty much zero.

The same goes for a vehicle travelling at 150kmh hitting a tree or powerpole. The deceleration time is to small to be in any way safe and all of the crash force is transferred to the brain & internal organs.

Seen it dozens of times

Dave

0
FollowupID: 376111

Follow Up By: warthog - Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 00:30

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 00:30
Hi Dave,
You have cited some good reasons in your response to Jeff for not having an arbitrary open road speed limit in the territory, however there are others you have not listed mainly relating to distance travelled and fatigue. The majority of us who live here are happy with our "moronic" open road speed policy we would like it to remain that way. Long distances are a fact of life here, and as elsewhere we like to get to our destination safely and in as short a time as possible. Who want's to sit on a road they have travelled numerous times at 100kmh when they can safely do so at 140kmh. If I'm asleep when I run into 115 tonne of oncoming road train that is sitting on 100kmh (as they are limited to) it aint going to matter if I'm doing 100 or 140 the result will be the same. 10 hrs at 140 or 14 at 100 to cover the same distance, obviously the level of fatigue is higher in the latter and the likelihood of falling asleep at the wheel is thus greater. That is without taking into account the numbing aspect of travelling at 100kmh in a modern motor vehicle with its sound proofing, comfort and better dynamics/handling as compared to the cars of our youth that were allowed to travel at the same open road limit on often poorer roads.
We all know speed increases impact damage and injury and revisting the theme of the adds;"oh no, if only I'd been doing 5kmh less little Johnny would still be alive" (possibly brain damaged and in life long care but alive) doesn't really help does it? Has the road toll reduced substantially in that great bastion of legislation and regulation known otherwise as Victoria last few years?
If not as cars are designed with a 96kmh frontal impact speed perhaps a 48kmh open road limit should be introduced and you can travel the Hume to Sydney at that speed as I'm sure NSW will follow when given statistical backup as to it's efficacy in lowering the road toll. If that fails then double demerit points and less of them to start with. As the speed limit is lower then fines start at 1kmh over the posted limit. To allow for the fact that people now have a greater disposable income from the savings in fuel costs of travelling at 48.9kmh to maintain the "hip pocket deterence factor" and offset losses in government revenue, fines will now be set at $1500 for exceeding the speed limit by 1-3kmh, $3000 for 4-5kmh and 3mths incarceration with hard labour for exceeding the speed limit by 6kmh or more.
Certainly this would be a more likely scenario with our current bureaucrats in power than educating people that it is inappropriate speed that kills and setting more appropriate limits. 40kmh or perhaps slower is fine around schools but so is 130 on well engineered freeways such as the hume. Spending more of the fuel tax on fixing roads and training drivers before handing them a licence might also help.
Cheers.
0
FollowupID: 376126

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:57

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:57
Hi Warthog,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the current revenue raising policies of the Vic or NSW state governments.

I have yet to attend a fatal crash, or one that involved a person ending up in a wheel chair or with an aquired brain injury where 5kmh was going to make a significant difference to the outcome - either mortality or morbidity. Pedestrian incidents excluded.

I have attended many where the 25, 50 or 80kmh that the person was esceeding the speed limit by have made a significant difference.

Fatigue certainly is an issue in the NT, but I drive legally and routinely at 140kmh in Ambulances, and on the NT roads I can't see that you can reasonably justify that 10 hours behind the wheel is particularly safer than 14 when research has shown most people begin to fatigue after just 2 hours.

The speed justification is purely a means of covering more ground in less time. This appears to be reasonable given your circumstances up there but there are other things that need to be considered.

The argument about hitting the road train is a moot point because on physics and evidence alone if you were stopped dead - pardon the pun - you would be killed by the road train that hits you head on at pretty much any speed above 48kmh.

Where the difference lies is in what you do to someone coming the other way in a vehicle of similar weight or less. This has a lot to do with the arguments being used against metropolitan 4wd owners at present, and a thing called agressivity.

If you are in the larger "more agressive vehicle" you inflict more of the damage burden on the other vehicle. But for the sake of the argument lets say the two vehicles are identical and not necessarily 4wds. A couple of commodores or falcons, what ever you like really, but modern cars meeting all of todays safety standards. One is travelling at 140 or 150kmh - seemingly not an unreasonable speed on the Sturt Hwy given that you have good road, good visibilty & dry conditions - the other travelling at 100kmh. To remove all blame lets say either driver (for whatever reason, fatigue, changing CD, spilled coffee or huntsman falling from sunvisor etc) strays onto the other side of the carriageway and they collide head on. The likely outcome is that there will be serious injuries sustained by all occupants of both vehicles, if not instant deaths.

You could be 100km or more from the nearest emergency service - likely to be volunteers in many instances therefore no access to Advanced Life Support protocols such as fluid (volume) replacement therapies - and the likely hood of being in a trauma centre inside the "Golden Hour" is zip. If the crash didn't kill anyone outright, all occupants chance of survival beyond the first hour is poor. The likelyhood of surviving the first week is negligable and the chance of no long lasting effect is practically zero.

The survivability and morbidity rate improves exponentially the lower the impact speed.

I would much rather that you were travelling slower when you hit me or any of my family, even if that means you take a bit longer to get where you are going.

Your points on driver training are extremely relevant. If we actually trained learners properly it might cost several thousand dollars to get your license but we would definately lower our road toll. The civil libertarians would argue that the poor would be unable to get a license but a license should be considered a privelige rather than a right.

Last point. I disagree that the Hume is a well engineered freeway and that many drivers are capable of dealing with the conditions it exhibits at 130kmh in varying conditions.

I have done code 1's to Melbourne down the Hume and in some spots it is not possible to travel safely at 130/140. The undulating, multiple repaired, and heavily wheel tracked surface is not as good as it appears at 100kmh. The trees along the road in places are not appropriate plantings for a freeway and their proximity to the road makes them dangerous - evidenced by the amount of wire rope barrier installed in recent years.

There are drivers who are undoubtably qualified to travel at speeds far higher on these and other roads (Lowndes, Brock and Seton?) but that does not mean that the road environment is safe for them to do so. Laws (and this gets back to the original snow chain thread and some of my earlier points) have to be written for the lowest common denominator - and there are many lowest common denominator drivers out there - so that the rest of us are safe on the road we share with them. If you post a 130kmh speed limit on the Hume you and I may be smart enough to know that it isn't safe to maintain that speed when the road is wet and the truck tracks are filled with water. Johny the P plater who has held a license for 12 months, learned with Dad (picked up his prejudices and bad habits too) and in a drought hardly ever having had to drive in wet weather does not. If he says "130, bewty I'll sit on 135 cos it's only just over..." and collects me I'm not going to be all that happy about it.

And the Hume north of Albury is a goat track not a freeway.

I'm not wishing to sound patronising in this bit but it's an extremely complicated issue that very few people fully understand the big picture of.

Unfortunately I'm in a position where I see this particular big picture all too often.

Regards

Dave
0
FollowupID: 376130

Follow Up By: Leroy - Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 09:40

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 09:40
Hi Dave,

'Though there is confusion in Vic about what is by definition a 4wd when it comes to being directed to fit chains'

Apparantly this has now been cleared up. If you have an AWD vehicle without a centre diff lock then the same rules apply to you as a 2wd vehicle. The authorities were finding that there were too may 'incidents' with awd vehicles.

Leroy
0
FollowupID: 376143

Follow Up By: warthog - Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:32

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:32
Hi Dave,
The point I was making about the t.v ad campaign is that it is a scare campaign that is in place to justify the large fines imposed for speeding and to distract the public from the fact that it is fundamentlly a revenue raising policy NOT a road safety policy that dictates the use of speed cameras and the like.
I stand corrected that perhaps places on the Hume highway are in a poor state of repair and 130k may be too fast for some of the "licenced'" drivers that are out there. If the revenue raised from speeding fines was put back into the roads and the fuel tax excise was also spent on upkeep instead of ad campaigns chastising us for exceeding the speed limit by 5kmh then we would soon have the road system we deserve.
My point that the Hume is much better than the undivided goat track it was in the '70s when the speed limit was 60mph stands. Car design has also improved from the '60s and 70's yet we are saddled with the same limits yet fined ever increasing amounts for exceeding them. Why don't we go back to the horse and cart no speeding then, how slow would you have us go.
What really $hits me though are "experts" that don't live here telling us what speed we should be travelling. I will continue to sit on 140kmh and occaisionally be overtaken by police doing similar or faster speeds. If you feel unsafe with people travelling those speeds stay in Vic and don't inflict your patronising advice upon us
0
FollowupID: 376145

Follow Up By: warthog - Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 13:28

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 13:28
I would also like to correct you as to your point that in many cases you will be attended by volunteers. At least in the southern region you will at all times when involved in a mvc be attended by a crew that has at minimum at least one A.L.S qualified officer. Comms operators are instucted to send I.C.P's to mvcs in preference to A.L.S only crews where possible. In the event that a clinic nurse on one of the communities is closer they will be dispatched and they are also capable of initiating I.V therapy. You are correct that you are certainly further than 1hr from an O.T and whole bloods though.
As much as the interstate calls for introducing speed limits in the N.T angers me I would like to retract the last couple of lines of my previous follow up now that I have cooled down. Insults weren't called for.
Cheers
0
FollowupID: 376163

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 22:45

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 22:45
Hi Warthog,

Thanks for the dialogue on this as it has been interesting.

I stand corrected on the volly issue. And I'm hope noone misinterpreted that I was in anyway trying to be critical of volunteers as that was not the intent, which was merely to point out to many members following the thread that unlike in the city you aren't going to get a multitude of Ambulances carrying ALS & MICA Paramedics arriving on the scene in 5 minutes.

While I disagree with the current policies regarding use of speed cameras in this state, and the manner in which they are implemented there is no arguing with the data the they in combination with hard hitting ads have slowed people down. The only speed cameras introduced in recent times that I do agree with are those on red light cameras, as running a red is dangerous, speeding through it is far far worse. The road toll in order to be in any way useful as a figure also needs to be expressed as a figure per registered vehicles or something similar in order to establish more accurate trends. In the early 70's we had many fewer vehicles on the road (smaller population base and very few two car families) and were killing 1000 people a year. Now with more and more vehicles on the road every year our numbers have become fairly static at less than half of that. Unless it's expressed diferently the figure is useless. The governments won't do that though as it doesn't support the speed camera argument they are running.

People involved in travelling this country in any remote area are all too often completely unaware of how isolated they are, how to get help, how long help will take to arrive, and what they expect is not often what they get. This is no different in some of the Victorian High Country or it's Western Deserts and an MCA there may take just as long to get help to as some of the MCA's in the NT.

While I have an opinion on your speed limits at no point did I advocate changes to legislation. Armed with information people have a choice to make about which speed they choose to travel at in your territory and I would like to think that I have potentially influenced even a few interstaters who may have thought "yippee" and let loose on the throttle when they crossed the border to rethink.

You're within your legal right to travel at what ever speed you like in your territory as long as the laws permit it. I still don't think it's all that smart but that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. I can also justify it with sound argument.

It's a fantastic place and I'll be back to visit again soon - if you see me coming the other way at least slow down for a bit until you pass me. :o))

Thanks

Dave
0
FollowupID: 376267

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Wednesday, Jul 20, 2005 at 13:08

Wednesday, Jul 20, 2005 at 13:08
"While I disagree with the current policies regarding use of speed cameras in this state, and the manner in which they are implemented there is no arguing with the data the they in combination with hard hitting ads have slowed people down."

Slowing people down who are skilled experienced drivers who are probally only doing 10k's over the limit anyway does very little to decreasing the road toll of young inexperienced drivers who continue to speed regardless of speed cameras and fines. If you look at the figures I think you'll find it's the young drives that form the large majoirty of road fatalities, these just happen to be the people who don't give a flying beep about speed cameras.

"In the early 70's we had many fewer vehicles on the road (smaller population base and very few two car families) and were killing 1000 people a year. Now with more and more vehicles on the road every year our numbers have become fairly static at less than half of that. Unless it's expressed diferently the figure is useless. The governments won't do that though as it doesn't support the speed camera argument they are running. "

Not only that but if you compare a 1971 corolla to a 2005 corolla I think you might find the reasons why the road tolls are less. Not to mention the imporvment to signs, road conditions and intersections. The fact that people die less in a car with 4 wheel disc brakes, abs, dual air bags, crumple zones and side intrusion bars with extrelemy good computer engineered suspension and decades of of improvments to tyres on vastly improved road surfaces with better signage and more traffic lights I feel has very little to do with the fact that people are now driving 10k's an hour slower.
It is (to me at least) absolutally amazing that people out there are stupid enough to actually believe that speed cameras are out there to save lives.

0
FollowupID: 376349

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Wednesday, Jul 20, 2005 at 23:18

Wednesday, Jul 20, 2005 at 23:18
Jeff,

I thought I had mentioned car safety improvement but reading back over my posts I had mentioned ADR's but didn't go into much detail. Of course vehicle improvements are responsible in part for the decline in fatalities. There is no question about that.

On your other issue there is no question what so ever that a speed reduction avoids accidents.

I made the earlier comment that I had not attended fatalities where 10kmh made a significant difference to the patient outcome. Where it makes a difference is in the number of accidents that do not occur in the first place but become near misses.

Braking distance is made up of human perception time, human reaction time, vehicle reaction time & vehicle braking capacity. The distance involved in stopping the vehicle increases as a factor of all of these things with speed.

Your vehicle when moving has a kinetic energy = ½mv².
When your speed increases the braking capability stays the same, there is no change to friction but the kinetic energy increases. When speed increases the kinetic energy goes up by the square of the velocity, eg. if the speed doubles the kinetic energy quadruples. The braking distance is a result of time taken to disipate the kinetic energy therefore if the speed doubles the braking distance quadruples. A 10% increase in speed therefore does not increase stopping distance by 10% but by the square. eg. A vehicle with a braking capability distance of 80m (approximately accurate for a 4wd) at 100km will have a braking distance of 97m at 110kmh.

Additionally to the 17 metre stopping distance increase you have the distance travelled during perception & reaction time. Perception & reaction times typically are between ¼ to ½ a second, but with fatigue, distraction, or alcohol can easily blow out to 2 - 4 seconds. At 100kmh with a reasonably good perception time of ½ a second a vehicle travels 13.5m, at 110 it travels 15m. At a slower perception time of say 2 sec the travel distances are 100kmh = 55m & 110kmh = 60m.

With a good perception and reaction time the overall stopping distance for the vehicle in the example is
100kmh : 80 + 13.5 = 93.5
110kmh : 97 + 15 = 112

A 10% increase in speed increases stopping distance by 20%. Travelling at 100kmh instead allows you not to t-bone the vehicle that pulls out of an intersection in front of you within 95 metres of it. If you travel at 110kmh you will still hit it at considerable speed.

Now whether it be commonsense, cameras, previous negative experiences or whatever that makes people slow down, they will be involved in less crashes as a result. Whether that be with kangaroos, pedestrians, cattle or other road users the cost saving to both the driver in future insurance premiums, vehicle damage, loss of income and medical expenses is not insignificant. The potential is to save lives.

People who like to speed will attempt to justify their actions to the bitter end. Unfortunately science is not on their side. Listen next time someone explains why they had a crash, particularly a single vehicle crash, someone or thing else is always to blame. If a vehicle is driven to the conditions, intersections are approached at sensible speeds and the driver takes good notice of their own fatigue levels and limitations there is nearly no excuse for a single vehicle crash to occur.

Every cloud has a silver lining though. Bad road trauma is interesting work for paramedics, presenting resourcing challenges, interagency challenges and clinical skill challenges. It makes the job interesting. It is definately not good for the patient, and it's avoidable.

The challenge of slowing down younger drivers is one that needs to be tackled in a different fashion, young people see their liberties as important so maybe harsher loss of license penalties or passenger/curfew type restrictions are required. I don't know.

A driver of any age however will benefit from "liftum foot" as the sign on the Wolfe Ck Crater track says.

You are a long time sucking your vege's through a straw when you get an ABI at 40.

People who argue the difference have yet to be faced with either their own or a relatives road trauma experience.

I see it every week & every fatality you attend stays with you. Every potential para/quadraplegic or vegetable you put into a helicopter makes you value your time with your wife and kids, and makes me more determined to see our country now rather than wait until later.

Dave

0
FollowupID: 376510

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 15:27

Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 15:27
Hi Jeff,

If you get a chance (time consuming isn't it) could you please reference your web links to the reports. I'd like to take a look.

Dave
0
FollowupID: 376576

Reply By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:28

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:28
Here is the latest from the NSW RTA

Snow chains
All two wheel drive vehicles entering the Kosciuszko National Park must carry chains. When directed by signs or an RTA Traffic Commander, fit the chains to the vehicles driving wheels (back wheels on rear wheel drive cars and front wheels on front wheel drive cars). Generally, this will be at special chain fitting bays along the route.
While four wheel drive vehicles may not be required to fit chains, it is still wise to carry them if you lack experience driving on ice and snow. You may also need them in the event of extreme weather conditions.
Make sure the chains you buy or hire are suitable for the wheel diameter and tyre size of your vehicle. If possible, have a practice fitting in your garage before the journey so that you understand how to fit the chains and won't be placed in a difficult situation in bad weather conditions.
Tyre pressure should be 25 kPa higher when using chains. Tyre manufactures recommend that cars with radial tyres shouldn't travel faster than 40 km/h when fitted with chains. Stop and check the tension of the chains after driving about 200 metres.
Remove the chains immediately when you are told it's safe to do so.

For more information go to: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/snowdriving.html
AnswerID: 120893

Reply By: WDR - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 19:31

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 19:31
The NT thing is interesting. I have been fortunate enough to drie on the autobahns in Germany etc and while I was far to scared (in my little diesel audi) to go outside the second lane I will never forget the cars travelling in the outside lane travelling at god only knows what speed and apparently with no more fatalities per head than we haev 9or less even)
Perhaps the better roads, discretion given to drivers to preserve themselves and others, better overall cars (VW Merc BMW Audi are all locals), and initial training given to drivers pasy off.
Please lets not have more bullbleepabout speeding being the main cause of deaths - it contribtes significantly but there are many other reasons.
AnswerID: 120989

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 19:42

Monday, Jul 18, 2005 at 19:42
>Please lets not have more bullbleepabout speeding being
>the main cause of deaths - it contribtes significantly but
>there are many other reasons.

I can't quote a source for this figure so I'll stand correction but I understand the Victorian TAC's own statistics only quote "speed" (whatever that means in this situation?) as being a significant factor in 20% of accidents.

Mike Harding
0
FollowupID: 376044

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 03:02

Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 at 03:02
The main ones making up the other 80% are drugs, alcohol, fatigue, suicide and failure to exercise due care at intersections and in oncoming traffic.

As for vehicle safety, there are a few cars that surprised and exceeded the standards set by some of the examples cited from Europe. The Subaru Forester XS was one.

Dave
0
FollowupID: 376131

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 13:16

Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 13:16
Actually,

"Even if speed cameras were used for genuine road safety purposes they could not reduce the road toll by even 2% with impossible to achieve total speed limit compliance nationwide.

This, while little or nothing is seen to be done to save the nearly 1600 people who die in road crashes below the speed limit each year. A chart from the RARU study used to support speed cameras identifies that over 76% of crashes occur at or near intersections yet no recommendations were made in the study on how to reduce this 76% of crashes."

Taken from www.roadsense.com.au

0
FollowupID: 376552

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 13:24

Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 13:24
Not to mention that if the government was seriously concerned for public saftery they would actually be investing their money into cancer research or 1 of the other causes of thousdands of fatalities in australia every year that are not realated to motor vehicles but which outway the fatalities.

"In 1993, 32,691 people died of cancer, 18,479 males and 14,212 females. This accounted for around 1 in 4 of all deaths."

The anual average of 221 from motor vehicle "related" (including pedestrian, bicycle etc etc) on Vic. roads? Kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it...

Quoted from: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/57beb431f495b9bfca2569ee0015d8a6?OpenDocument

0
FollowupID: 376553

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 14:39

Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 14:39
Jeff,

Dunno how how you figure that Victorian average out when the figures are as follows:

Year Number of deaths
1970 1061
1971 923
1972 915
1973 935
1974 806
1975 910
1976 938
1977 954
1978 869
1979 847
1980 657
1981 766
1982 709
1983 664
1984 658
1985 669
1986 705
1987 701
1988 706
1989 776
1990 548
1991 503
1992 396
1993 436
1994 378
1995 418
1996 418
1997 377
1998 390
1999 384
2000 407
2001 444
2002 397
2003 330
2004 343

1970 - seat belt wearing made mandatory
1987 - MUARC established
2001 - a 50 km/h default speed limit introduced
Source: Victorian Transport Accident commission.

That makes the average since 1970 a fairly ordinary 638, and for the 10 years to 2004 an improving 389.

Sorry Jeff but your figures are wrong.

For an informative article which actually quotes figures in fatalities per 100,000 people see this link.

Where the real dollar cost is in serious injuries as a result of crashes.

Serious injuries rolling 12 month

Current as at 06 July 2005

May 2003 - Apr 2004 6594
May 2004 - Apr 2005 6275 (down 5%)


Serious injuries (equivalent periods)
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 5 year average
6151 6555 6719 6886 6594 6581

When road injuries cost $400 million dollars in Victoria in 1991 which if indexed at 3% puts it closer to $600 mil in 2004, and more current figures put the cost of a minor neck/spine (recoverable) injury at $23,000 and a moderate (minor lasting effect) at $70,000 where do you think that the revenue you want put back into roads and cancer research is being swallowed up?

Jeff, I have a challenge for you, please go and find research to suggest speeding can have a negative affect on the road toll and then come back.

Alternatively come with me next time I have a job like the last fatality I did where the driver doing 130kmh overtook a car into the path of the oncoming motorcyclist. Tore his leg clean off at the pelvis - a bystander dragged it off the road to stop it being run over. Killed him outright.

Traumatised the driver, not to mention his 9 y/o daughter who saw it all through the front windscreen in real life. "Nothing like watching the ads on tv - much worse" she told me.

Then, as it occurred not far from his place family and friends arrived on scene - traumatised them too.

Happy to keep debating but I'm afraid real life isn't on your side. Come back with evidence next time please.

Dave
0
FollowupID: 376565

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 14:59

Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 14:59
Ok, I don't have a lot of time at the mo, but I found this quickly while I was talking to a customer on the phone, I will find some more for you later:
"The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes.

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents."

And as far as going with you to the scene of a car accident, nonone is saying that car accidents are a lovely place to have a picnic with your family, but that statement of yours was kind of like me inviting you to the aged care facility my mother in law works at so you can watch the terminally ill pateints die slowly and painfully. It's a bit of a rediculous statement IMHO.
0
FollowupID: 376572

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 15:12

Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 15:12
"Higher Speed Limits, Lower Death Rates
Statistics surprise many observers of state's highways;
Regional -- When California revved up speed limits nearly three years ago, critics predicted highway carnage as drivers sped past the new 65 mph signs -- and into trouble.

It didn't happen. Fewer people died in California auto wrecks last year than in any year in the past four decades, despite a doubled state population and triple the number of vehicles on the road.

A total of 3,671 people died, far below the peak of 5,503 in 1979 and 5,500 as recently as 1987. This year, the death toll is running nearly 300 lower than the same period last year, California Highway Patrol Commissioner D.O. Helmick said.

``I for one am not going to tell you that raising speed limits in California has created a major problem,'' he said. ``We have never seen this kind of reduction in my 30 years on the highway patrol.''

The reduction is part of a nationwide phenomenon. As Congress debated ending the national 55 mph limit on most freeways in 1995, the Center for Auto Safety predicted an extra 6,400 people a year nationwide would die in addition to the 41,000 killed in 1994. Instead, the federal government reported last week that the death rate on the nation's roads fell to a record low in 1997. And California's death rate is even lower.

``Traffic safety in California is great. . . . It's a model for the nation,'' said Paul Snodgrass, spokesman for the San Francisco office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

To find out what's gone right with the new speed laws may be more a matter of looking at what was wrong.

Despite the government-imposed 55 mph cap, drivers sped along freeways before the change at an average of 67.1 mph. Drivers on those same freeways now posted at 65 average 68.8 mph.

``The speed limit has changed, but I don't see people's driving habits have changed all that much,'' said CHP Officer John Heckenkemper.

As Heckenkemper prowled the Peninsula in a shiny black and white, one possible explanation for the falling death rate was obvious on Highway 101 -- traffic was creeping along for miles. It was another story on Interstate 280, as he spotted a driver whose luck appeared to have run out.

But Heckenkemper gave only a warning to Jonathan Strickling, who was pushing 80 mph near San Bruno. A claims representative for an insurance company, Strickling said the Bay Area's fast-paced lifestyle keeps people on the move.

``People are going to drive fast regardless of what's posted. They have places to go.''

``Everybody was going faster than the speed limit anyway,'' said Pat Monaghan, owner of Cross City Express, an East Bay trucking company.

Monaghan, who logs about 50,000 miles a year, sees the real problem as the difference in speed between cars and light trucks versus commercial trucks, which are still limited to 55 mph.

``People zoom down the road at 65 and cut in front of the trucks in the right lane,'' he said.

Dave Phillips, a driver for Gateway Limousines in Burlingame, said he hasn't seen much change in speed but thinks drivers are more impatient, probably from growing congestion.

``More and more people are on the road. You can look at the bridges and see that,'' he said. "
0
FollowupID: 376574

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 15:33

Thursday, Jul 21, 2005 at 15:33
Yeah sorry, I started doing that but I've kinda had my ass hangin out today(busy) at work and to top it off my bloody laptop keeps locking up and freezing!! GRRRRR. I'll try and find them again for you and post the links...
0
FollowupID: 376577

Sponsored Links