-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Gypsy__Jazz said:
Actually Her Highness Lady Kirner began the school closures. Kennett simply recognised her good idea and completed the work.
What's not to get. If you follow the rules you won't get fined. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?
I live on a highway that has multiple fatal crashes every year, the vast majority of which are caused by speeding. You think it's more important to be able to drive the speed you want to than to save people's lives?
I live on a highway that has multiple fatal crashes every year, the vast majority of which are caused by speeding. You think it's more important to be able to drive the speed you want to than to save people's lives?
Disco08 said:
I follow the rules and haven't been pinged for years.
BUT
I also think the rules are overkill.
Far better to spend the $'s on driver training and road improvements.
The only time I've come close to death I was travelling below the speed limit and lost control when my wheels struck a very poorly maintained road shoulder. Had I died (because I narrowly missed hitting a very large tree) then I have no doubt it would have been attributed to speed. But I was only doing 90 in a 100 zone because it was raining and the road (up near Powelltown) was crook.
IMO the pollies from all parties and the police are choosing the easy option by simply hitting drivers in the pocket.
And here's another one. Apparently some people were killed this morning in the CityLink Burnley tunnel. They were travelling at 80 and hit a truck that stopped suddenly because of a blow out. This is what I would call an "accident". No doubt the nanny state will call for more controls, less speed, etc, etc.
IMO the pollies from all parties and the police are choosing the easy option by simply hitting drivers in the pocket.
And here's another one. Apparently some people were killed this morning in the CityLink Burnley tunnel. They were travelling at 80 and hit a truck that stopped suddenly because of a blow out. This is what I would call an "accident". No doubt the nanny state will call for more controls, less speed, etc, etc.
try this for aconcept disco speedo tolerance as per aust design rules is 10% high or low not 2 %. whats multiple ??? 3 or 4 ??? decent driver training would go a far way to culling the road toll but thats too hard to implement and doesnt raise cash.and brainwashed attitudes like yours do nothing to change the fact there will always be fatalities on our roads.speed cameras dont save lives they are just revenue raisers.i have been saying it for years give every single copper in aust a fully marked company car to drive to and from work and see how that effects the road toll.teach the kids to drive properly,ban in car dvd and satnav and automatitic only liscences except in disabled cases and make it illegal to tow a trailer of any sort without training and i bet the drop in deaths would be minimal cause you cant account for stupid people as your previous posts reinforce :hihiDisco08 said:
yeh poppa most roads in the yarra valley shire have crap edges.i used to linemark roads years ago and the stupid descions by morons that never drove out of the city but are in charge of our road budgets would have to be seen to be belived.and you are 100% right on how it would have been attributedpoppa x said:
ssstone said:
Multiple is 12 deaths in the two years I've lived here and approximately 300 serious accidents. I can see what you're saying though, 3 or 4 lives wouldn't really matter huh? I agree with all of what you said (aside from calling me stupid and brainwashed, but whatever, I know it's beyond some people to have a discussion without reverting to this type of stuff), where did I say any of the things you mentioned weren't important? But I still can't see why people whine about speed cameras.
Of course speed cameras are part of saving lives. If a speed camera catches one person who likes to drive well over the limit (I've been to court numerous times in my life, and a day in local court is a procession of people who have been caught either exceeding the limit by large amounts or drink driving with high BAC) and forces them off the road before they can kill someone that's a good thing isn't it? Cameras are only revenue raisers if people insist on breaking the speed limit aren't they?
no disco speed cameras arent even a PART of saving lives.simply revenue raisers .the introduction of E.S.P and A.B.S in modern cars has been the biggest factor in lower tolls .not any inatative by any goverment anywhere.6 deaths per year eh ? how many male suicides in the same time frame ?? find out how many cars travel that road each year and divide the yearly toll into it and see what you come up with ? sweet *smile* all.it is a simple fact of life that pple will die in car crashes and if you think a $200 fine deters drivers from doing 5 - 10 klicks over the limit you are living in a bubble.by the way i havent copped a fine for years :hihi
You're speedo's probably out.
You don't get it do you? Of course 12 deaths is a small percentage of the people that traveled that road. The fact is though that probably at least 10 were caused by people breaking the speed limit significantly (5kmh is not really here or there) and could have been easily avoided if these people followed the rules. Further to that, if (god forbid you might say) there were cameras all along the road (which there aren't) then those people may have been deterred from breaking the limit and lives would have been saved. You may say it's only one or two or fives lives saved, but you wouldn't be saying that if it was someone from your family that was killed.
You don't get it do you? Of course 12 deaths is a small percentage of the people that traveled that road. The fact is though that probably at least 10 were caused by people breaking the speed limit significantly (5kmh is not really here or there) and could have been easily avoided if these people followed the rules. Further to that, if (god forbid you might say) there were cameras all along the road (which there aren't) then those people may have been deterred from breaking the limit and lives would have been saved. You may say it's only one or two or fives lives saved, but you wouldn't be saying that if it was someone from your family that was killed.
of course my *smile* speedos out.as is everyones in aust.explain easily avoidable? where did you come up with "probably at least 10 ' ? "GOD" DOESNT EXIST THEREFORE HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT I WOULD SAY. how would you know what i would say if it was a member of my family?? i nearly lost 3 mates whilist working on the roads one will never walk properly again and it happened on the princes highway 300 metres in front of a speed camera because the moron driveing the the car fell asleep while drunk. in 2003 i had a truck run up the arse of a pilot vehicle behind the machine i was operating cause the braindead steering wheel attendant also thought he should have a nap.guess how these accidents were written up about in the papers?? speed was the cause . the drunk because he came from a wartorn country, couldnt speak english.copped a WAIT FOR IT a fine .because of his unfortuante background.my mate almost lost his house whilist in hospital ,let alone the fact he cant work again and the driver lost his license for 18 months. and you think watching a speedo is gunna save lives??you cant legislate against idiots and mores the pity then we wouldnt have spin doctors brainwashing the likes of you with thier propaganda .Disco08 said:
Sorry if I've touched a nerve with you, but maybe now you see the point. You have friends who have had their lives altered because of stupidity on the roads, and although neither of the stories involves speeding surely you understand that speeding is as much if not more of a threat than the scenarios you described?
I come up with at least 10 because traveling this road every day I've seen one fatal accident, four other serious crashes and countless close calls ALL of them because people were speeding, generally trying to overtake someone else (or a row of cars) doing the speed limit.
Easily avoidable means exactly that. If people obeyed the speed limits accidents would be avoided, it's not a hard thing to do.
And stop telling me I'm brainwashed, or stupid, or whatever. You don't know me and you don't know what I've seen or been through. Just because my views are different to yours doesn't mean sh!t. If you don't want to run into people with different opinions to your own I suggest keeping off internet forums.
I come up with at least 10 because traveling this road every day I've seen one fatal accident, four other serious crashes and countless close calls ALL of them because people were speeding, generally trying to overtake someone else (or a row of cars) doing the speed limit.
Easily avoidable means exactly that. If people obeyed the speed limits accidents would be avoided, it's not a hard thing to do.
And stop telling me I'm brainwashed, or stupid, or whatever. You don't know me and you don't know what I've seen or been through. Just because my views are different to yours doesn't mean sh!t. If you don't want to run into people with different opinions to your own I suggest keeping off internet forums.
jb03 said:
Well, firstly, do you agree that the Left government stuffed the state financially before Kennett took over?
Do you agree that it was the Lib Government, led by Kennett, that got us back our AAA credit-rating?
The 'future fund' is a nonsense anyway. All this rhetoric about it being there for future Australians is incorrect. It was established by Costello in an attempt to cover the federal government's unfunded public servant superannuation blowout that he allowed to happen in the name of releasing a 'bigger than expected' surplus each year. If anything it is a 'Past Fund', put in place to attempt to pay back what should have already been set aside to people who have already earned it.
IMO the wisest course of action would be to dissolve the silly thing and invest the necessary money into the various public service super services which are already running at great returns. That way it is truly covering the government's obligations to its employees and is truly out of reach of the government once paid.
IMO the wisest course of action would be to dissolve the silly thing and invest the necessary money into the various public service super services which are already running at great returns. That way it is truly covering the government's obligations to its employees and is truly out of reach of the government once paid.
