I don't know if anyone has been watching the news about the 17 year old girl who was killed by hit and run on Saturday night. Well this happened on my street in front of my friend's house and few of my friend saw the whole thing. The guy was driving about 130 kms on a quiet 60 zone and hit the girl without even braking or stopping!!! She died instantly. So sad that an innocent life is lost due to one bastard who thinks the road is a race track. He didn't even stop, left her for dead. Thank God he was caught this morning, hope he gets life for what he has done. He was a disqualified driver.....at 29yrs of age you'll think he'll be man enough to stop. Only if he could see her family and friends when they saw her body. I came about 15 minutes after it happened and let me tell you, these experience changes you mentally about life. So please everyone if any of you have the urge to drive fast make shore its on a free way or something.....not a quiet neighbour hood where little kids can run onto the road. For me I don't think I'll have the guts to V-tec for a long time.

P.S. there is no such thing as safe speeding.

 

A bloody tragedy.

Has anyone noticed that it's almost always disqualified drivers that are involved in Police chases and serious accidents. We must be doing something wrong.

 

Yep the system is too weak on people....these days you can get away with murder!

 

There is a thing called safe speed otherwise all of the guys that compete in club sprints, etc would kill themselves.

It is insane for anyone to go 130kmh in a suburban street. The driver was a dickhead.

I live on top of a hill in a sidestreet off a main road. Most nights I hear cars gunning it over a blind crest at warp speed. A lot of grunty V8's and boosted 4 cylinders. The drivers that are gunning it up the hill are complete dickheads (with quick cars). Anyone can speed on the road. Throw the dickheads on a track and lets see how quick they are (especially without modifications).

 

Has anyone noticed that it's almost always disqualified drivers that are involved in Police chases and serious accidents. We must be doing something wrong.

What's the point of police remanding and singleing dangerous (and/or olivious) drivers? Afterall there's a lot more money in booking people doing 5kph over the limit on a 6 lane road. There's no money in hanging around little (or dangerous) streets and protecting lives.

P.S. there is no such thing as safe speeding.

Not to be insensitive, but there's no such thing as 'safe driving' - as long as you're moving in a vehicle then it's dangerous ... it does not matter what the speed is. Any movement (in particular in a 1,000kg+ box of metal) is dangerous.

Also, what is 'speeding'? Is it going over the speed-limit or driving too fast for the conditions/road/circumstances? Things like this can happen even when obeying all the speed-limits ... hitting someone at 60kph can easily kill that person. If you're not looking ahead then it does not matter that much whether you're doing 60 or 100kph as it's only time before you hit/kill someone.

ps. Sorry about getting off tangent and sorry to hear about the incident.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidM
[B][b]
P.S. there is no such thing as safe speeding.

Not to be insensitive, but there's no such thing as 'safe driving' - as long as you're moving in a vehicle then it's dangerous ... it does not matter what the speed is. Any movement (in particular in a 1,000kg+ box of metal) is dangerous.


Ok now I STRONGLY disagree with this comment David and am not out to insult you but it is a very ignorant assumption to make
As the X Tauma Co ordinator at the Royal Melbourne Hosptial and having done much study and research papers on the effects of reduced speed on the open road as well as built up areas. Currently finishing my PhD in Critical Care and Trauma and most of my research has been on road truama and speeding. I have also been on the TAC Road accident prevention board, as well as Consulting various government departments on road safety issues... So please feel free to argue with me if anyone feels the need
All of us in Vic have seen the TAC ads haven't we ?
So we should all know the effects of a 5km reduced speed on a surburban street shouldn't we people
The asshole who did this should have his hands cut off so he can't drive fast ever again ! If he didn't have the humanity in him to stop I would be thue first person to beat the shit out of such a spineless wanker.
Of course driving is dangerous but the is such a thing a safe driving
Cheers

 

Sorry
the above is in relation to 'the safe driving' comment
not safe speeding

 

Since you're an expert you should know there is a continuous relationship between speed (and many other factors) and trauma and fatality rates. There is no speed at which those rates drop to zero. You could always run over a cliff. You could have a heart attack. Children get run over in driveways at 5km/h. DavidM's comment is perfectly valid. There is always a risk. What level of risk is "safe" and who determines exactly what probability of injury or death is regarded as "safe"? As has been pointed out ad infinitum to focus on speed alone is to ignore all the other factors that relate to accidents and injury. In my view speed cannot be seen as the primary cause of the hit and run incident mentioned. The primary cause was the out of control, reckless attitude of the imbecile behind the wheel. People like that are not "safe" at any speed.

Here's a little point that is often misunderstood even by people who should know better. Correlation does not imply causality. If it is possible to demonstrate a correlation between speed and accident rates that does not imply that reducing speed will reduce accident rates or that increased speed leads to more accidents. All it shows is that dangerous drivers tend to drive faster. It doesn't show that slowing down those same drivers makes them safer. Confusing correlation with causality is an example of "converse error". Another example is "All cats have 4 legs, my dog has 4 legs, therefore my dog is a cat". It has been widely reported that reduced speed limits in Victoria were followed by an increase in deaths (I don't know if this is true) and that increased limits in Canada and parts of the USA led to lower death rates. While it is obvious that collisions at a greater speed carry a greater risk of death or injury the whole issue of speed and danger has been greatly distorted by the propagandists who feed us slogans like "Safe speeding - there's no such thing" (I went over 1000km/h in an aeroplane once and I'm fine).

 

There is a risk
but it is safe
as you said it's the people behind the wheel who are the unsafe ones
you can also have a heart attack while bearing down on the loo

 

Ok now I STRONGLY disagree with this comment David and am not out to insult you but it is a very ignorant assumption to make

I'm not entirely sure what you disagree with? I said that there is not such thing as 'safe driving' (ie. driving at any speed is dangerous). Is that what you disagree with? If you do then let me how travelling in a car (at any speed) is safer than not moving in the car at all (ie. being stationary)? The only 'safe' thing to do is not to drive a car at all as any mobility is dangerous.

Or was it the speed thing (where I said that doing 60kph will not necesarily save anyone) that you disagree with? To give an extreme example - pressume that a driver is doing 60kph but figures that 60kph is 'safe' and therefore he does not need to pay any attention to the road or what goes around. Let's say just to be 'safe' he's on a cruise control so there's no chance of speeding. Let's say he's reading a magazine, looking at the birds flying above ... checking out the people in the garden ... whatever. The person that is standing in a middle of the road and get's hit by a car travelling at 60kph has pretty good chace of being killed. Hence doing 60kph did not save this life.

To add more fuel to the fire. What speed is 'safe'? If 60kph 'safe'? I'd say that 60kph is 'safer' than 70kph but that's all. Though, then 50kph is 'safer' than 60kph. Then again 40kph is even 'safer', correct? What about 30kph, isn't that even 'safer'? So back to my original point - 'driving at any velocity is not safe'.

ps. No insult/offence taken.