The Australian reports that the NSW RTA’s in the process of developing an iPhone-specific speed application due to roll out by mid-next year.
Speed is definitely a problem on Australian roads, and the RTA’s latest tactic is to develop an iPhone application that’ll correlate user road position with the roughly 118,000 known speed markers across some 186,000km of roads and warn you if you’re going over the speed limit. That’s a challenging prospect even for well-travelled city roads, but once you go rural it gets even tougher; the paper quotes the NSW Road Traffic Authority’s principal safety analyst, John Wall as saying that
It’s those local roads out in rural areas that are providing a bit of a challenge in terms of the accuracy of the maps”
For now it’s iPhone-only, but they’re looking at the possibility of delivering an Android app later down the track. Blackberry users are plumb out of luck; there’s no plans for you, and Windows Phone 7 doesn’t even score a mention. [The Australian]
Photo by Ian Waldie/Getty Images
Jams Mac
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:15 AMThis would be immediatly after it notifies the police that you’ve been using your phone whilst driving?
maddogeco
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:16 AMSpeed doesnt kill bad drivers and poor road cuase accidents spend the money on fixing pot holes and let me drive at 120km on empty straight country roads
Guy
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:31 AMWhat a load of crap. Of course speed kills. You would not have to do a lot of research into the different impacts at different speeds to know this is the case. As for the potholes? Drive for the conditions. If you live in the country like I do you have all sorts of roads – many of them unsealed – want tax payer dollars to be spent sealing millions of km of unsealed roads just so you can drive faster than you need to? 120km/hr would never be safe on any road except perhaps the motorway and even then only when there is little traffic. Ever hit a roo at 120km/hr? Every speed is safe until you hit something. Then it’s not.
Jamie
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:16 AMWhile I don’t totally agree with, maddogeco, saying that “120km/h is never safe” is just ridiculous. If it was never safe you wouldn’t see speed unlimited roads like autobahns in Germany. Why can they have speed unlimited roads there and not here? Because the roads in Germany are engineered way better than in Australia, and driver training is much better. The fact is, the reason we have the lowest speed limits in the world is because rather than spend money on giving us better roads and better funding for driver training, the government would rather make money off speeding fines. If they actually fix the problem, that’s millions of dollars in revenue they will be denying themselves.
Also, maddogeco wasn’t saying that “millions of kilometers of unsealed roads” should be sealed. He was saying the the sealed roads that we DO have should be kept safe.
I’m all for safe driving and I stick to the speed limit, but I’ve had years of experience and lots of advanced driver training to make myself the best driver I can be. I just think there are better ways to spend money to make the roads safer.
Guy
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:35 AMYou need to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions
Robb
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:38 AMNo, he was disagreeing with on on the poing that 120km is never safe. Not once did he suggest you don’t drive to the conditions.
maddogeco
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:02 PMIm saying in small increase in the speed limit for cars on well made country roads between major rural centers (Tamworth to Dubbo) should. Trucks and old cars drive at just under the speed limit causing cars to bunch up. in increase in the speed limit would allow people to overtake safely and not get frustrated and make a rash move. People are so worried about speeding now they spend more time checking there speed then their mirrors. and of course better train for young drivers (not just more log book hours) is needed.
In the uk there are 3 speed limits 30 40 60 miles per hour for streets small country roads and highways. it simplify things so people can focus on the road not the sign posts.
@Jamie 120kmh may not be the answer. but people shouldn’t need to look at the speedo every 2 seconds
CJ
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:26 PMAnd I suspect you’re one of those self righteous drivers that sits in the right hand lane doing spot on the limit on a highway when not overtaking and won’t move over when another car comes up behind you
Guy
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:41 PMActually, I too hate drivers who don’t move over to the left. However, if I were in the right hand lane and driving at the speed limit, how could any driver come up behind me? They would be breaking the law.
What I hate is when I am passing a slower car and I am doing the speed limit and a car travelling much faster that I am comes up behind me and cames much too close in an unsafe manner when it is clear that I was already passing the slower vehicle on the left.
Countrydriver
Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 5:50 AMGerman Autobahns were first built as a transit system for the military, not commuters or tourists, no wonder they were over-engineered.
It isn’t always necessary to drive fast to die on the road, driving over-tired or driving a car to prove virility is just as dangerous.
Why not ban after-market enhancement and keep motor vehicles at the safety standard they are manufactured to instead of allowing improperly installed, and poorly maintained, vehicles to get into the hands of people who use the roads to restore their inadequate libido.
typedmillepede
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:04 PMJamie is right.
Ammusionist
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:12 PMHey you’re right maddogeco, If only there was some sort of app or something so we would not have to… ?
CJ
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:47 PMAs you would be breaking the law if you are sitting in the right hand lane when not overtaking
MDG
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:39 PMHowever, if you are in the right lane You are breaking the law anyhow if not currently overtaking, over taking 5 minutes ago or goign to over take in 5 minutes doesn’t change it, if the speed limit is 80 or higher, keep left unless overtaking, self righteous Git, You keeping the law doesn’t give you the right to stop others breaking it… (I try to keep to the limit, however being human means that unless I look at the Speedo all the time (and not look at the road – very unsafe- my speed will fluctuate. (Even on Cruise control))
andydapooh
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 5:25 PM“self righteous Git, You keeping the law doesn’t give you the right to stop others breaking it… ”
+1
MotorMouth
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:36 PMCorrect me if I’m wrong but I believe that dozens of astronauts have travelled at speeds in excess of 20,000km/h without injuring themselves at all. And only last Sunday I witnessed cars travelling at up to 300km/h on what is normally a public road, again without anyone being injured. OTOH, in the past few weeks several young children have been killed by cars travelling at just a few km/h, in their own yards. It seems to me that speed is not necessarily a factor in road safety at all.
If you want to talk about speed limits, then you will need to explain to me why it is perfectly safe for someone to travel at 60km/h in a 40 year-old car with virtually no active or passive safety features beyond seatbelts and minimal brakes, yet it is unsafe for me to travel on the same road at 65km/h in my late model sports car with brilliant handling, excellent brakes and every safety feature known to man. The fact is that speed limits are arbitrary and largely meaningless.
Aucix
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 9:50 PMUm really? Using a space shuttle as a comparison is beyond pointless. And in regards to professional drivers racing in controlled conditions, yeah that to is different from Johnny-P-Plates or some other ass in an FPV or Clubsport going 180 ’cause the blokes in the V8s do on the TV’.
MotorMouth
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 11:41 AMYes, good work. Get stuck into the clearly flippant comments and ignore the serious one. That’s definitely the way to get your point across. And how is any road not “under controlled conditions” and why should it make a difference whether a driver is a professional or not? We all spend hours a day in our cars, we should all be expert drivers by the time we get off our P plates. There is also a massive effort by every state to enforce road rules, which makes for a very controlled environment. So even your responses to my flippant comments are unconvincing.
DV2
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:41 PMIt’s obvious to me that Guy has never had proper driver training.
I’ve done all the advanced courses available for driving and motorcycle riding. 120KM/H is perfectly safe in good conditions, on a road with good visibility and low traffic. Our highways are generally capable of 140KM/H traffic.
The worlds best drivers agree and all of the crash data points to one thing. Higher speed limits do not, never have, and never will result in a higher fatality rate.
Stop being brainwashed by useless politicians.
Francis Mullane
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 6:23 PMMmm Ok so here’s a thought experiment.
Speed cameras are catching speeders in record numbers – but they don;t actually stop the offender at the time they catch them, they freely continue speeding oblivious to the fact that they were just caught until the fine shows up 2 weeks later in the mail .. so where’s the corresponding record increase in speed related fatalities in the same areas where the happy snaps are being taken ?
Joel
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:16 AMAfter reading the headline I thought it was going to go something more like “Take photos of speeding cars and we’ll send them a ticket” or “Turn the app on and if you go over the limit we’ll warn you and then send you a ticket”
But that’s something I’d expect more from the police or the private companies lol
light487
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:26 AMSo what’s different to this from a standard GPS Nav System (whether standalone or smartphone based) warning you if you are going over the speed limit??
Joel
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:28 AMRTA have the best list of speed cameras to warn you about and I believe they daily have locations of the “pop up” cameras which they may and very much should implement at some point.
CodeSeven
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:33 AMThe difference being, operating a GPS device whilst driving is perfectly legal (provided you maintain proper control of your car). Using a mobile phone whilst driving, for ANYTHING, is not.
Joel
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:50 AMActually I believe it is legal as long as it’s in a “GPS style” dock and you’re not playing with it. You can’t hold the phone or use it otherwise.
CodeSeven
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:01 AMNot to start any sort of argument here but have a read of Rule 300 of the Road Rules 2008. No where is there a provision for a “GPS style dock” (whatever that is).
I’m refering specifically to Rule 300(2)(d) – “Operating any other function of the phone”.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the legislation, nor am I suggesting that every Police office will or will not enforce that rule under the circumstances mentioned. I’m simply saying that it is unlawful and ‘using it as a GPS’ is not a lawful defence.
CodeSeven
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:05 AMI actually stand corrected (and should read things through before commenting). ‘Use’ under this rule applies when the phone is held in the hand of the driver.
Rule 300 allows ‘use’ if the phone is not being held in the drivers hand (ie: docked).
Joel
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:36 AMWell thanks for clearing it up, I was just going by what I heard so it’s good to know it is actually a rule for anyone who may want to use it that way.
Jatallica
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:58 AMSorry, check again, operating a GPS is perfectly illegal. you can have it sit in a dock and look at it, but the second you touch it whilst the car is moving you have broken the law. Operating suggests you are touching the device and not just looking at it.
mike
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:51 PMThis is correct.
If you read through the WHOLE rule 300 it says that the only time the driver can touch a phone or display device (eg GPS) is when passing it to a passanger.
So while driving its legal to take your phone out of your pocket and give it to a passanger, but your not allowed to touch it even if its in a dock.
I can’t remember the exact wording because i read it about 6 months ago when a friend got booked, but its actually very clear. Complicated wording, but the message is clear.
CodeSeven
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:31 AMAnother knee-jerk reaction from a NSW Government Department – how refreshing!
What ever happened to motorists learning how to read street signage and paying a little more attention to the road they’re driving on? It seems that those skills are no longer a prerequisite in obtaining a driving licence in NSW.
As a Police Officer in Australia, I can confidently say that if you’re caught speeding, regardless of what app you happen to have, it’s neither an excuse or a defence. Likewise, if you’re caught using your mobile phone whilst driving, you’ll face another ticket! (And the word ‘use’ means everything from turning on the phone to using GPS functions.)
Clearly the RTA seem to be taking the onus off the driver to ensure their adhering to road rules and having a machine do it for them; that builds very bad driving habits in my books. I wonder who from the RTA is going try and use this “bright idea” as leverage for a promotion??
Sean C
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:50 AMSo if I have my iPhone mounted to my windscreen running the TomTom app(GPS Navigator) I’m essentially “using my phone” and you could hand over a ticket to me??
CodeSeven
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:52 AMCorrect! Unfair? Maybe. But the law is very clear on it.
CraftyNinja
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:59 AMInteresting point.
Will be even more interesting to see if this is a case of the law not being updated “with the times” or if it is, in fact, illegal inspite of the GPS function being in use.
And by extension, does that law also apply to the use of car systems that sync to phones using bluetooth?
Not to sound like a troll, but it’ll be good to see an article on Giz looking at tech and law from these perspectives.
Sean C
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:42 PMIts not just unfair. Its BS. Its running the same function a stand alone GPS is and its not sitting in my hand, its on the windscreen! The same place everyone else has theirs.
I have to agree with CraftyNinja when he suggested that the law may need to be updated to get with the times.
I see no issue with the way I “use” my phone to navigate the streets and it will be a cold day in hell before I paid a fine for doing such. Especially when I see at least a half dozen idiots each day driving around with a phone stuck to their ears, cutting off traffic and near running over people!!
mike
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:01 PMThe reason the law states you can not touch your device – be it GPS or phone is to make the law actually enforcable.
Its writen to make it very black and white, both for drivers and police. You can not touch your device, period.
If your using the GPS you’ll have to pull over to change it or set it up before you start driving.
The problem here is how is a cop going to know if your playing angry birds while driving or typing a text or checking a street address? If you bring in all these conditions it makes the law impossible to enforce.
As far a distractions go, zooming on a map and reading street names or typing in a new address is no different to reading or typing a text, thus the law applies to both instances.
This way if the police see you touching the device you get booked, regardless of the reason.
The thing that gets me every time is this: How is touching your phone (eg while using GPS) any different to fiddeling round with the radio or trying to find a CD to play?
Again it comes down to what is enforcable.
Sean C
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:11 PMI can understand the issue here if I was touching the phone to change something…then I am using a device whilst driving and thats an issue with the law.
However the way CodeSeven makes it sound is that I dont need to be touching it. Its a mobile phone and I’m “using it” so therefore am breaking the law?!?
Mike, I’ve wondered the same thing regarding the stereo controls…
James
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:16 AMWhy don’t you give a few yellow sickers out to car enthusiast while your at it mate? It’s not like we work hard for out pride and joys or anything, we like wasting time and splurging out money for you guys :)
John
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:34 AM“Speed is definitely a problem on Australian roads” – stop drinking the RTA kool-aid!
Vehicle speed inappropriate to the conditions being the major cause of a collision is very rare, and even then you might argue driver stupidity or inexperience.
No way would I be using an RTA-sponsored app that has anything to do with speed – you might find they are tracking you without your approval.
The RTA might be better off concentrating on drunk or drugged drivers, or providing better driver training – but there’s no money in that, is there?
Guy
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:37 AMWrong John – speed is implicated in at least 40% of fatal accidents – see the stats for yourself: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/accident_statistics_dl4.html
Robb
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:41 AMI suspect that the RTA claim speed is responsible for 40 percent of accidents because you can put a number on it. You can’t say for sure, with discrete, definite facts that a driver was fatigued, or distracted.
z3d
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:59 AMit sound like 60% of accidents, speed is not a factor. so you can reduce your risk of having an accident by a third by speeding? lovely stats mate.
Guy
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:29 PMThat’s outstanding statistical analysis z3d! You could get a job working for Tony Abbott!
So let’s see, if 40% of homicides are caused by firearms, that means 60% of homicides are not caused by firearms, therefore it’s OK to shoot yourself in the head. Yeah! And climate change is crap!
z3d
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:58 PMthat’s amazing. do you have any other stats genius? break it down for me. tell me what those stats actually mean and the conclusions you reached. pretend i actually do work for abbott.
DV2
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:49 PMYea they put ‘speed was a factor in this crash’ in a little checkbox at the scene.
Guess what? They do that in nearly all crashes because if ‘you aren’t moving you won’t hit anyone’ therefore the fact that you were moving at all was a factor.
Now just hop out of your car and burn it. You shouldn’t move it as it’s unsafe to do so.
wooktree
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 3:47 PMSeeing as a lot of drunk drivers end up speeding, wouldn’t you say that catching people speeding is completely appropriate? There’s rules for a reason and there’s no reason why you can’t just follow them.
The police should be pulling people over and flashing whoever they see speeding. Whether your drunk or not, you’re not following the rules. Imagine how much better the roads would be if everyone did approximately the same speed? Nobody to blame but yourself if you’re caught speeding.
Simon
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:41 AMSpeed isn’t the issue. Crashes happen when stupid decisions are made. Going 130 on a road such as the F3 at times when there is very little traffic and everyone follows the road rules (eg. keep left unless overtaking) then there isn’t any issues. Going 130 down the F3 when it’s raining and there are lots of cars on the road is stupid and will lead to crashes. But the speed limit should be just that, the limit given good conditions, not the speed you can go in any condition.
bruce
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:05 AMSimon i agree completely. The problem is no one in australia seems capable of the keep left unless overtaking rule. I so wish this was policed as it would save a lot of driver frustration. I cant count the amount of times i’ve seen people riding each others bumpers on the f3 and the left hand lane is empty. I only drive on the f3 maybe 20 times a year so i can only imagine what its like to drive it all the time….
Dave
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 10:49 AMThere are speed limits for a reason. The RTA is just trying another way for you to be aware of the speed limits around you. I can’t stand all the ridiculous ACA and Today Tonight stories of people complaining they got a speed ticket and its all about revenue raising… Well who the hell cares! If you’re caught speeding you were doing something wrong and you have to pay for that! If you don’t speed you won’t get a fine.. don’t fight it, accept it, drive slower and consider that there are other people on the roads and footpaths!
I know I go over the speed limit on occasions and I don’t have any excuse… if I was caught, I would cop it and pay the fine because I knew what I was doing was wrong…
James
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:19 AMWow, you really are ignorant. Speed limits were set years ago back when cars had horrible handling and minimum saftey requirments not in todays age cars are much more capable of travelling at much faster speeds, safely. It IS all about revenue raising.
JD
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:48 AMbut there are still so many vehicles out there that aren’t “todays age cars”, or vehicles that are built or modified to a sub standard, then there is also wear and tear which would further reduce the safety ratings of many of todays vehicles. i’ve attended many MVA’s where safety features have not deployed or have deployed incorrectly because they werent maintained and many accidents were caused by the usual factors, not driving to conditions (be that driver, vehilce or environmental conditions), lapse in concentration, alcohol/drug related accidents. speed limits are in place to increase safety and quite frankly, i’d double the fine if it meant that it caused even one less fatality or serious injury.
typedmillepede
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:15 PMYou can’t argue that the speed limit now is out dated. most roads that are 100 could handle 130, especially if the government spent some time bringing the roads up to par with the rest of the developed world.
i’d suggest that at anything over 80 you are screwed in a crash anyway, there is just too much energy in the car. the remedy to this is better driver training.
what we need is driver training and improvement of road standards, that is what will reduce accidents. it would allow an increased speed limit too.
Guy
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:56 AMTell you what James. Go work in a road trauma unit for a while and then make a decision. You can travel at 300km/hr if you like. Perfectly safe. Until it isn’t.
I would agree that the fact that there are speed limits is sometimes used by governments to raise revenue, but are you seriously suggesting there should be no speed limits? It wouldn’t matter how high you set the limits, people who want to speed would break them. If everyone agreed that 120km/hr should be the legal speed limit then the people who speed would travel at 130 or 140. It’s not because there is a ‘need’ to travel at that speed – it’s just because some people think that the law shouldn’t apply to them and that they are ‘special’ and ‘a better driver’, therefore they should be entitled to travel faster than ‘normal’ drivers.
mike
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:10 PMJames, I disagree.
New cars with all their safety features and stability control are breeding generations of poor drivers. Drivers that dont understand the risk of driving, they dont understand that they are in control of 1.5tons of metal and 60+kmh.
New cars baby drivers. Just because a new car is capable to drive at high speeds safely is NO reason that people should drive that fast.
Most important factors in driver safety is driver reaction time and education.
Doesnt matter how awesome your car is, if you dont brake fast enough you will hit the guy in front.
I cant remember the name of a the study but someone looked at stats over the years and as the population increased car fatalities decreased. Thats excellent, it came from speed limits and anti drink driving campains from the 80′s, however the percentage of non fatal accidents and low speed accidents increased at a rate faster than the population and number of cars on the road.
basically a new car has a much greater chance of keeping you alive in a crash, but it sure as hell isnt going to help you avoid it if you drive like an idiot or too fast in wet conditions etc.
mike
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:16 PMAlso i forgot to add, I completely agree with Dave, if your so angry at goverment revenue rasing, then dont bloody speed. It’s not hard to stay 1km under the limit. If people didn’t speed then the goverment wouldn’t be able to revenue raise. imo its a stupid tax, wether you agree with the speed limit or not, breaking it is just stupid.
and before you go off that I’m some old guy “out of touch”, I’m 24 and drive a 215kW commodore. I’ve had 2 speeding tickets in the last 6 years, both were 65km in a 60 zone.
Me
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 3:35 PMActually many can for example my car can automatically brake itself, steer itself back onto the road and alert me of when there are people and animals on the side of the road at night when they can’t be seen by humans.
Dave
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:43 PMYou really are the ignorant one James. Number one, I said that speeding fines are a form of revenue raising but I don’t really care because speed limits need to be enforced. To say that cars are capable of travelling faster ignores so many things its even hard to know where to start…. what about pedestrians? What about motorcyclists and bike riders? What about a truck speeding and going straight into a hatchback? What about a really safe car hitting an older car with less safety features? The speed limits aren’t there for the safest cars, they’re there for selfish idiots like you who think they can speed and if they get into an accident they’ll be fine and to hell with the person you kill because of your selfishness and stupidity. Good one mate.
Nathan
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 11:54 AMCollect GPS data and use it to find the places where people speed the most
Insert speed camera
Profit
bruce
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:05 PMJust like tom tom did in europe… i think giz covered that story a while ago when tomtom sold info to the police or the rta equivilent.
Labrys
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:17 PMThe speed limits set here are out of date and need to be reviewed. That is already the case in the UK:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/140440/130kmh-highway-speed-limits-coming-to-the-uk/
And there are plenty of examples in Europe of better rules and regulations are speed limits and driver training.
Also 80% of tickets are issued for people going 10km or under the speed limit. So it’s not like people are hooning out there but the government simply sees this is a cash cow to milk for as much as they can. If they were serious about the road safety message any revenue generated from speed cameras would be put back into road safety measures e.g. improving the quality of the roads.
We also need to look at compulsory defensive and offensive driving courses for learners. People need to learn how to actually drive and control their car. This would have a much bigger impact on the death and injury toll on our roads then simply putting up speed cameras.
matt
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:48 PM“Speed is definitely a problem on Australian roads, ”
is it?
Sally
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 7:37 PMI wondered what all that white powder on the road was, thanks. Know that I know that, I shall head out the front with my rolled up $50.
Jeff
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:01 PMProblem is driver training… and people like i Was when I was 18…. I got a car, spent 1000′s on it… making it fast (funny thing is Police never tried to defect me for my engine, it was always my larger slotted brakes, wider rims and tryes and lower coil over suspension… which actually saved me from a few crashes)
I was a dickhead, I would sit on about 180 -190 on the highways at night… just because, lucky for me my car “could” handle it but looking back it was still stupid… anyway my point is most of these kids that get their licence do the same thing but normally in some old shitbox car with crap brakes and thin shitty tyres…
Raising the speed limit is fine, but a few things are needed, like better safety checks on older cars, wider better tryes on newer cars, better driver education and most importantly defense driving course’s.
I think tryes are the most import point here to… for example ever get into a new small car with thin wheels and slam the brakes on in the wet… count how long you’ll slid before you stop…. ITS AGES, then get into a car with rims or just better tryes and do the same thing, you’ll stop MUCH MUCH Quicker!
MotorMouth
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 11:47 AMI don’t think driver training is the issue at all. Do you think that dickheads who change lanes without indicating or hog the right lane or make illegal U-turns o rfiddle with their phones while steering with their knees don’t know they are doing the wrong thing? Of course they do, they just don’t give a damn. What’s needed is zero-tolerance enforcement of every road rule, not a single-minded focus on one thing. For a start, it would raise a lot more revenue than speed cameras and over time it would make the roads better and safer for everyone.
TvZ
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:11 PMSpeed is an issue as chickens now have a more difficult time crossing roads…
I recently got a massive fine for riding my bike well over the limit. Well deserved and didn’t contest it one bit. I now drive exactly on the limit in the left lane where possible, but still get ticket off with the rattling small vehicles passing me at 15km faster than me.
Nick
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM“Speed is definitely a problem on Australian roads”
Maybe if the speed limits here were updated to reflect the current advancements in motor vehicles and not the ancient standards of the 1970s maybe this wouldn’t be such a problem.
The driver education here is a joke. That needs to be fixed too. There is no reason that highways are not at least 130km/h.
Dave Lord
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:24 PMI can not believe there are people who argue the correlation between speeding and fatalities. It seems some are even trying to defend speeding.
People, the maths is easy….
If you hit something while traveling at 10 klm/hr, you will not get hurt.
If you hit something doing 80 klm/hr you may be injured.
If you hit something doing 250 klm/hr you will probably die.
Your chance of survival is directly inversely proportional to the speed you are traveling!
Speed limits are imposed to protect the innocent from the idiots.
z3d
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 2:05 PMit’s not a question of right or wrong. you could just put a blanket 40km/h maximum speed and 20 for residential streets. surely you would then agree that this should be law?
other factors –
tyres
age/type of your car
weather/visibility
safety equipment on your car both for accident avoidance and also in the event of an accident
your own physical motor skills
if you’ve ever done the speed limit during the rain on the highway in a 15 year old shit box, do you really think going faster than the posted limit is so unsafe in the dry in a new car? it comes down to opinion, not fact as to whether or not speed limits are reasonable and what should be done to reduce people getting hurt on the road.
by the way, hit something at 80km/h, you will probably die or else have serious injuries.
John
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 2:22 PMOh Lordy, Dave! Imagine that, we could all be safe if we travelled at 10 kph.
Humans were not designed by nature to travel much above walking speed – meaning that if we want to travel at say 100 kph and we crash we should be prepared to accept injury.
I’m trying to say there is an inherent risk in motorised transport and that risk cuts in at a very low speed. The way I see it, once you’ve accepted the risk, travelling at 110 kph instead of 100 kph – if conditions allow – does not dramatically increase your risk.
Oh, and I don’t trust RTA stats on speeding. They are not objective. You simply don’t get unbiased, objective studies on road safety in this country.
Barry
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 6:00 PM.. Inversely proportional to the ** square of the ** speed
G.W
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:48 PMIf they fail to support only one type of platform, does that mean they have discriminated. what about poeple who don’t use smart phoes at all (I’m sure there are a few still out there).
People who own an i-phone get tip offs others don’t? Surely that would open them up to all sorts of legal holes?
G.Saville
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:53 PMWhy is the RTA developing for iPhone?
Android phones outsell iPhones in Australia, plus Android’s growth curve is steeper, so the will soon be many more Android phones than iPhones.
iPhone users tend to pay more cash for apps. But that’s not a valid reason for a public utility like the RTA.
So, RTA, why haven’t you got an Android app out first?
Ben
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 2:20 PMAnd they are considering raising the speed limit in the UK to 133 on the better roads.
And they’re driving standards would not be very different to ours.
Kevin
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 3:13 PMI thought Media Watch’s coverage of A Current Affair in relation to speed cameras was pretty interesting. They were able to find plenty of evidence that excessive speed is dangerous.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3326211.htm
Franz
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 4:20 PMWhy is hell’s kitchen would anyone want this app on their phone?
Mr Odd
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 5:20 AMYeah, what waste of our money. I use the tomtom app and it tells me when I’m spending. They would be better to help GPS makers keep their speed limit info up to date.
And fix our pole holed roads!! Some aren’t safe at any speed!!
Daniel
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 5:49 PMI don’t care what speed we all think is appropriate for any conditions. Until this state/country introduces driving tests that actually teach people how to DRIVE, (not parallel park) DRIVE, there will continue to be an abhorrent number of deaths per capita in relation to european countries with higher limits.
Driver training and education…that is all.
MotorMouth
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 8:42 PMDon’t cars have speedometers to tell drivers when they are going too fast and cruise control to keep them from exceeding the speed limit? People who are too stupid to heed those instruments are unlikely to remember to switch the app on, so it seems like a bit of a waste of effort to me.
DK Son
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 1:05 PMI did an advanced driver training course at Eastern Creek and they said that after 64km/h impact speed your chances of survival become almost 0 (or something. It was a while ago.)
So if you think that 100kmh on a motorway is the absolute max and that the speed shouldn’t be increased then you are ignorant.
And saying “driving to the conditions” is just asking for trouble. I can handle my car with ease at 100. I know I’m more than capable of going 150 comfortably…. in clear conditions. Does that mean I can drive to the conditions then… at 150?
Increasing the speed limit by 20-40kms isnt going to do much. You are already travelling at 100m every 4 seconds when doing 100kmh…. what’s wrong with making that 2-3 seconds?
I already got into a heated discussion with a girl who said “speeding is dangerous regardless of your reason”. I proceeded to mention ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, etc and she shut up.
Speeding is not dangerous. It’s when you factor in people who aren’t paying attention that things go wrong. And this can happen at any speed. In fact it probably happens at lower speeds more often… people would be more likely to pull out a phone in residential areas as they feel they are “going slower and are more in control”. I might be wrong though, just a thought.
I’m all for increasing speed zones when appropriate. And I agree that more log hours in a learner book is not the right way to educate drivers. there should be more promotion for teaching schools. Doing a group learning session perhaps to keep costs affordable (1 on 1′s can become very expensive) would be great. My advanced driver training was a class of about 30. I went home with a lot more knowledge.
I could actually go on for hours about this, but I’ll stop now.
DK Son
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 1:08 PMSorry, I meant there should be more advertising for training schools.
These are invaluable lessons for one of the most important (life on the line type of activity) things you will do in your day to day life.
morgan
Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 2:27 AMso this will do exactly what your speedometer does?
tell you when youre over the speed limit, ignore it, and keep accelerating?
id rather you lowered rego fees than this waste of money, whats the point of it?
Robert
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 12:22 PMEver spend 14 weeks in Hospital after someone falls asleep behind the wheel? It tends to affect every aspect of your life thereafter and many around you. OK we can do all this advanced driver training, reduce speeds, improve roads and supply wonderful App’s for our smart phones but, what we really need is a mum on the roads when we’re there driving. Lets call them “police” and see more of them out there all the time . . .